Talk:Punk subculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
To-do list for Punk subculture: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Include proper references and citations!
  • Identify and fix any and all POV problems
  • Find and correct any factual errors
  • Remove all redundant internal links
  • Fix all redirect links to other articles
  • Summarize history of punk in 'History' section
  • Move most historical material to history of punk article
  • Make 'Fashion' section less focused on classic look--summarize punk fashion article
  • Decide format for 'Subcultures within punk' section
  • Clean up 'Subcultures within punk' section by streamlining descriptions of subcultures
  • Streamline description of straight edge in 'Subcultures that developed out of punk' section
  • Expand neglected subcultures under 'Subcultures with origins separate from punk' section into short paragraphs describing those relations
  • Flesh out 'Mainstream and popular culture' section, covering commercialization, pop punk, and punk rock's influence on rock music in general

Contents

[edit] When?

When did the Shakespearean term punke (prostitute) turn into punk (male prostitute)?

[edit] To be moved

Since this page is a disambiguation, I've shortened it and removed the following text to be moved to another appropriate and more specific article. Strike throughs have been used in disamb page or moved. Maybe copy of this should go to Wikitionary? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I suggest that all the etymological information and non-encyclopedic material be moved to the wiktionary page (I just created a link). The rest, we can somehow integrate into the relevant articles (for example the stuff on punk music should go to the punk rock article). --Lexor|Talk 13:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modern usage of the term

1. Reference to followers of punk music, fashion or culture.

2. In prison slang, the term retains its urban street culture meaning and refers to a male who is treated as a sexual submissive.

3. Social and political set of beliefs, morals and standards indicating an absolute rejection of conformity. In many ways nihilistic, followers tend also to reject capitalism, government and social norms of the mainstream cultures and relgions. Alternately pacifist and violent by nature, it is a seemingly contradictory philosophy focused on the present. Adherents tend to prioritize the moment- often at the expense of history, or future personal success. An individual identifying as "punk" is likely to experience life as a raging fire or die trying. Many have co-opted the punk aesthetic for its commercial or cultural capital, yet the core believer will reject both. It is defined by its lack of definition. Adherents will reject arguments of most requirements, belief structure or even the label "punk" itself, yet when viewed from an objective standpoint these seemingly ungainly values come together as a unique way of living.

4. A small piece of kindling used for lighting slow-igniting substances.

5. A small stub of a cigar. This meaning is derived from the oldest uses of the term.

Apologies for adding this here, but I'm new to wikipedia and know nothing about the wiktionary.

The usage of the word punk that I associate with the music and the movement is (quoting from the OED 2nd edition, Clarendon Oxford 1989): "Something worthless; foolish or empty talk; nonsense, rubbish." It's tagged as colloquial, and quotes an example from the Times - 1973 30th May 5/5: "I don't like the family Stein. There is Gert, there is Ep, there is Ein. Gert's writings are punk, Ep's statues are junk, Nor can anyone understand Ein."

I remember sometime in the late 70s a bewildered BBC reporter interviewing a punk who was patiently explaining to him that of course she wore rubbish (garbage) bags BECAUSE one meaning of 'punk' was rubbish. A joke, geddit? (He didn't.) Pinkmouse 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms derived from the word punk

Punk rock, named in reference to the above term, is a largely musical movement that arose in the mid to late 1970s and reached its peak of popularity in the early 1980s. Etymology of the term is suspect, but it likely derives from the customers of the first venue for such music, CBGB's in the Bowery in New York City, who were alledgedly male prostitutes. The music was therefore 'rock for punks.'

More recently, many variants on the punk sensibility have resulted in the word punk being combined with other terms - for example, "eco punk," meaning a person with punk attitudes who is dedicated to environmentalism or concerns about ecology.

See also: punk fashion, cyberpunk

External links: Open Directory: Punk Rock

[edit] Original meanings

The original meaning of punk is combustible material such as rotten, mouldy faggots of firewood or wood with Polyporus fungus growing on it. Alternative names: spunk, punkwood, funky stuff, amadou. The punkwood is dried or charred and used in a flint and steel fire. It may be used as tinder or char. When put into an already blazing fire, especially if not completely dried, this kind of material may cause explosive "popping" or "fizzing" sounds (See also: fireworks).

In Shakespearean slang punke is used as a word for a prostitute, interchangeable with the word "croshabell". For instance in "Merrie conceited Jests." by George Peele (undated but probably published in 1620) one of the jests is called "How George gulled a Punke, otherwise called a Croshabell."

This meaning (prostitute) remains in use to the 18th century. In the early Restoration (1672), Samuel Butler begins Hudibras by saying that the English Civil War had:
". . . made them fight, like mad or drunk
For Dame Religion, as for punk,
Whose honesty they all durst swear for,
Though not a man of them knew wherefore." (Canto I, lines 4-7)
It is a meaning that has never entirely disappeared, though it has, in the 20th century, developed a specialized context.

Slang. A young person, especially a member of a rebellious counterculture group. An inexperienced young man. Music. Punk rock. A punk rocker.

Slang. A young man who is the sexual partner of an older man. Archaic. A prostitute.

[edit] Excess

I have removed the following item from the dab "

  1. Hunky Punk, a stone carving of an ugly face on the walls of buildings
  2. Punkie Night is a local Somerset variation of Halloween. (Source:Punkie Night on National Geographic's '"Pulse of the Planet"')
  • A punk is a combustible material or a piece of kindling to light slow-igniting substances. Also a small stub or cigar.
  • In American prison slang the word "Punk" is used to label the a person who is scared to do certain acts because the act may be illegal or frightening, also used as an insult agianst the misfit of a group."

--Commander Keane 11:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy

  • This article is predominantly perscriptive rather than descriptive and needs a complete rewrite.Tombride 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? What are some of the biggest problems? I know it's not perfect, but can you give some idea of how to fix it? The Ungovernable Force 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and what facts are you disputing? The Ungovernable Force 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The factual accuracy tab is just the best fit for the problems I see with this. As I said above the article is a completely perscriptive view of things. The problem is mostly that the article has been written by "punks". It is worded so to avoid any criticism of the punk scene; it paints too rosey a picture. Tombride 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote about 90% of this article and I'm not a punk. Ecto 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if it's NPOV you're worried about, that wouldn't be the factual accuracy tab, it would be the neutrality tab. I'll change it if that's alright. Also, what exactly do you take issue with? Ecto 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then, paint a bleaker picture, as long as what you say is NPOV itself we should have no problem. I'm the first to admit the punk scene is uber-screwed and has serious problems. If you have anything specific, please add them. The Ungovernable Force 07:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think it's an issue of NPOV. As I think about it, probably the best tag to add would be a needs improvement tag. The article just is written from a really narrow viewpoint. Also, TUF, I don't apprectiate your taking such a combative stance here, it's really unneeded.Tombride 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
How was I combative? I agreed with you. The Ungovernable Force 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem of the article being written from "a really narrow viewpoint" would be a NPOV problem by definition, so a "needs improvement" tag would not be exact enough by your reasoning. I will remove the NPOV tag until we can sort out what the best tag would be. Tombride, could you please supply specific examples of what you think is wrong with the article? That would go a long way in communicating your views. Thank you! Ecto 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that, I'll have a little more free time tomorrow and I'll put something up. I see that request has been made twice and I'm not ignoring it. I've just not gotten around to it yet.Tombride 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article. I would say there is litterally NOTHING in this article that warrants being kept. It reads like a middle school english essay by some kid who just cut himself a mohawk. This is a essentially an article on the punk music scene from the late 80's onward. It doesn't discuss the aspects of punk art and music from the first wave (you know, when they mattered). Punk deserves an article on wikipedia, but this article is complete and unadulterated garbage.Tombride 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. The Ungovernable Force 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of content in this article which pertains to the first wave of punk, including the art and music sections. How does that content ignore the first wave? Of course, much more content is needed, not only regarding the first wave, but also the contemporary subculture (this article is about both, no matter how unimportant you think the contemporary subculture is). Please contribute what you know about the original subculture, since more content is needed on that subject. Besides that, your criticism of the article is still as vague as ever. Once again, I have to let you know that specific examples would be helpful. Would you please provide some? Ecto 03:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I can come with a completely neutral point of view, as I don't know anything about punk. Look at a sentence like "Not everyone who plays a hand in the punk subculture is a punk, however, and someone with no connection to the subculture whatsoever may be a punk." This sentence implies that "punk" is some sort of boolean concept which is equally defined by everyone. It is as if you either are, or are not a punk, and the criteria are this and that. However, I imagine that someone can wake up in the morning, be called "punk" by her father, simply because she has orange hair, then meet some friends at school, who try to make her pierce her nostrils with a safety pin to become a real punk. In the evening the same person plays guitar in a punk rock band, and the other band members think she is the most punk of them all. The following day she takes up her weekend job as waitress at a luxury hotel, where she wears an elegant uniform, and no one would even for a moment call her a punk. Considering this, I think the sentence I quoted at the beginning of this paragraph is very un-encyclopedic. Mlewan 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is pretty much impossible to define in an NPOV way. Everyone has a different idea of who is and isn't punk and people will never agree. The Ungovernable Force 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Punk is an identity. A lot of people have viewed it that way for a long, long time. The punk subculture certainly has. An identity does not have to be equally defined by everyone in order to be an identity. All identities have criteria. Trying to define the criteria for punk identity is about as hard as defining the criteria for a lot of other identities, and agreement on said criteria is just as sparse as in a lot of other cases, but the Punk article should document this issue anyway, because a lot of these other cases have their own articles (Who is a Jew?). Maybe the section should be entitled "Identity, lifestyle, and community", and deal with things in that order. Ecto 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed that sentence to, "Not everyone who plays a hand in the punk subculture is identified as a punk, however, and someone with no connection to the subculture whatsoever may be considered a punk." That reads a bit more NPOV, I hope you agree. Ecto 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun with Punk

“Punks seek to outrage propriety with the highly theatrical use of clothing, hairstyles, cosmetics, jewelry and body modification.”

You automatically outrage people and get body modfications when you've been wearing the same clothes for a year and thereby smell and look like a shit.

“Punks enjoy stage diving, crowd surfing, skanking, pogoing, hardcore dancing and moshing.”

Now, did we? From what I remember most of us were too busy clinging to the bar, to jump around like monkeys.

“The Young Ones is, in some ways, a punk television show.”

No, not really.

“U.S. punks sometimes faced abuse from Rednecks and other right-wing groups such as the Nazi-Skinheads.”

Read 1st comment.

I could go on forever... But I won't. The article is a joke and needs a complete rewrite.

D.I.Y. Ecto 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide reference - citation needed

I've added details on Suicide's coining of the term punk, after reading it in the sleavenotes to one of their albums, but I don't know how to cite it. It is from the double cd version of their debut eponymous album. Please add the correct citation.

There are a lot of claims to the origin of the term. Punk Magazine, Dave Marsh, and Lester Bangs also have some claim. These other possible origins should have a mention as well. I'll see if I can put together a reference for the Suicide album. I'm not sure if the origin of the term should be put in the introduction, though. Ecto 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a separate heading in the article "origin of name", which can state these different claims and any other, including Shakespeare for that matter.
Tyrenius 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That might get sticky. The section might turn into a dictionary entry, like the section in the Goth article. I would rather the topic be addressed in a paragraph in the History section, once one is written, because it is a matter of history after all. Ecto 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I just got rid of that claim (without knowting this discussion was going on). That is definitely not true since the term was used in the 60s to describe garage rock bands. The Ungovernable Force 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk and Grunge

I think a case could be made for grunge being a subculture, albeit more of a media construction than anything natural (not that punk is entirely free from being a media construction). The sociological definition of subculture is broad enough that everyone from poker players to astronauts form subcultures, so surely something that has associated music, fashion, politics and geography in the way that grunge does is a major subculture, even if these things are pretty loosely associated. I would like to put the content about grunge back into the Punk article. Ecto 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, although Grunge is a clear outgrowth of punk, a lot of people object to it being called a type of punk. Make sure to cite a source for whatever you put in. The Ungovernable Force 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is grunge really a sub-subculture? Subcultures associated with grunge and punk might be realted in the same way that the music genres are, but I don't think the "grunge" subculture fits neatly inside punk. I prefer the current setup mentinoinf grunge, as well as goth and emo, as outgrowths of punk, although not the same. --Switch 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from looking at the history of this article, grunge has always been listed under "Subcultures which grew out of punk" and not "Subcultures within punk", ever since I made these sections. I certainly do not consider it a subculture within punk. WesleyDodds removed the paragraph about grunge apparently because it is "Not really a subculture", according to the edit summary, but I disagree. I think grunge can definitely be considered a subculture, and one that grew out of punk to become distinct in its own right. I am not proposing that we consider grunge a subculture within punk at all, just that the paragraph about grunge be restored to the "Subcultures which grew out of punk" section, because it is a subculture, as opposed to WesleyDodds' apparent view that it is not. I would like to hear the argument against grunge being a subculture. I have always agreed that it is not a sub-subculture of punk. Ecto 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we agree then. The argument against grunge being a subculture is that it was just a marketing term and a fad, I believe. An arguable case, but grunge was cetainly more a subculture than emo (slang) is. --Switch 12:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Grunge isn't a subculture. It's a style of alternative rock, a genre which emerged from the American indie scene. The cultural traits associated with grunge are regional variations on this scene; the ethos were basically widespread in the American underground. So it's basically covered by the section about the indie scene. WesleyDodds 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grunge was more than a style of music or a regional variation of indie. It was its own subculture. A shared ethos is not enough to equate two subcultures. You cannot ignore other cultural factors. Grunge had a unique origin, musical form, fashion, level of mainstream penetration, longevity, name, and, yes, region. Any of these factors alone is not enough to identify grunge as a distinct subculture, but together they are. Grunge and indie are different animals. There was crossover and similarities, but they came from different backgrounds, created different styles, and went in different directions. Ecto 21:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand the American underground rock scene of the 1980s. It was a network of indie scenes tied together by touring, fanzines, and passing records around. The Seattle grunge scene was relatively isolated, but it was a part of it. There were other indie scenes at the time which were quite similar, such as New York, Minneapolis, Athens, Olympia, Boston, and so forth. Grunge's breakthough allowed alternative rock as a whole to enter the mainstream. WesleyDodds 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand it. They shared a base of cultural dissemination (touring, fanzines, and passing records around), but that does not mean that grunge is not a subculture, let alone that it is the same subculture as indie, because its cultural superstructure (grunge's actual culture--its styles--its music, fashion, cultural influences, origins, and relations) are significantly different. Hardcore punk and indie shared much the same base of cultural dissemination during the late 1980s, but that does not mean they are the same subculture, does it? Grunge shared the same base as well (although it was in a different region--but that is another type of base), but it had a cultural superstructure as unique as anything, with some culture in common because it was derived in part from both. Indie is defined by things other than its base of cultural dissemination, which is the sole thing by which you are defining it here. It has a unique cultural superstructure consisting of indie fashion and indie music. Grunge had the same base, but its cultural superstructure is distinct from indie. Indie and grunge have both musical and non-musical styles that they do not hold in common. Indie and grunge had different styles across the entire cultural spectrum with the exception of ideology and means of dissemination. These subcultures must be taxonomized primarily by their cultural superstructures, because if we go by their bases of cultural dissemination alone we will not be able to differentiate these subcultures in terms of what is most important--their cultural styles. It does not make sense to say that grunge is not a subculture, because it has unique styles. Within a larger culture, any cultural construct with unique styles (base or superstructure) is a subculture. You seem to either have a definition of subculture that misses that concept, or fail to see how grunge fits it, even though its superstructure especially is distinct enough. Ecto 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The Seattle grunge scene itself had its own particular traits, but the phenomenom that related to grunge/alternative traits that were accepted by the large number of youths at the time is the so-called "alternative culture". Grunge was largely synonymous with alternative rock as a whole in the early ninties, so just emphasizing on the grunge scene excludes the wider picture. Read the Grunge music article as well; there was no subculture per se, rather traits of the grunge scene were perceived as part of the larger Generation X phenomenon in order to compare it to a comfortable frame of reference (being the 60's counterculture movement) even if it didn't quite apply.
By the way, grunge fashion wasn't particularly unique, since there was no conscious fashion in the first place. Even flannel, that staple of grunge imagery, was worn extensively by other bands in the indie scene, notably Minutemen and Hüsker Dü, because it was cheap and kept you warm when touring the country in a shitty van. Michael Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life covers the American indie scene and points out a lot of common traits and interconnectedness between various scenes. Other alternative bands in the indie scene incorporated hardcore punk and metal influences, took the same approach to fashion, and approached their way of living from a philosophy based on punk's DIY ethic.
My main argument isn't that grunge isn't a subculture (which is largely isn't, but let's ignore that). My contention is that the Seattle grunge scene was a component of a larger subculture (the American indie scene) and focusing on grunge really doesn't put things into a proper perspective. WesleyDodds 07:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though grunge was only a “component” of indie, it was sure as hell fussed over by pop culture. Something with such a massive amount of mainstream penetration is important on the basis of that alone. Grunge remains a part of the popular imagination, even though it was largely an invention of media hype and is somewhat of an embarrassment today. I mean, come on, who has not heard of grunge? An article about punk needs to mention it. The article about grunge music and fashion is filthy with references to punk. Removing every reference of grunge from this article does not make sense unless every mention of punk is removed from the grunge article as well.
When a person says grunge and when a person says indie, they are referring to two different things. You would not call all of indie grunge, would you? No, that word refers to a very specific thing. Indie is still around, and grunge disappeared a while ago. Today's indie is a very different animal than indie when grunge was in its heyday (largely because grunge broke and indie recoiled). Since the content of this article should be in as contemporary a perspective as possible, considering grunge's culture as interchangable with that of indie--today's indie--would not be all that accurate, would it?
Where is the undue focus on grunge in this article? How does it usurp anything else? How is it the sole object of focus? It has a brief paragraph, just the same as the dozens of other things culturally related to punk. Indie has its own paragraph as well. The paragraph about grunge does not hog attention from the one about indie at all. It is not as if indie cannot have as much content as it needs just because grunge has any content at all. Wikipedia is not paper, so we do not have to worry about running out of space just yet. If cultural importance is our yardstick for inclusion, grunge is far more worthy of mention than, say, positive punk, but both deserve a nod in this article because they both have something to do with punk. If you want to beef up the paragraph about indie, by all means, please go ahead. It needs beefing up. I would also like to see a paragraph about alternative culture, as well. The mentioning of grunge is not holding anyone back from writing about how important indie is. Grunge is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned. Ecto 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote and combined the sections in a better attempt to illustrate the connection between the two. WesleyDodds 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article again I notice a huge problem which is tangentially related to the discussion: most of the descriptions of the minor and related subcultures are based upon musical rather than subcultural traits. It's really not informative when the description of the punk subcultures is largely a list of subgenres. This relates to the current discussion because there is a often a distinction between genres and the scenes, particularly in the form of separate articles. There's a difference between indie rock (a subgenre of alternative rock, as is grunge) and Indie (music) (the indie scene), just as there is a distinction bewteen Punk and Punk rock. Notice that the page on grunge is about a musical genre, not a subculture. And do we really need a list of every subculture that has a connection? I'm mainly referring to the "Subcultures with origins seperate from punk" section. WesleyDodds 02:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please give your definition of subculture? The term, as it is used sociology, means something different from what you seem to think it means. Technically, a music genre is a subculture, because a subculture is nothing more than a group of people with a certain behaviour in common. Playing a style of music is a behaviour. Listening to a certain style of music is a behaviour. What is a genre other than a type of music that a group of people listen to and play? That is all you need to define something as a subculture. Just one behaviour. Cigarette smokers are a subculture. TV watchers are a subculture. Wikipedia is a subculture. Of course, I am not using it in such a broad a way, either, but I think you should be aware of just how broad it is. You seem to be operating under a very, very narrow definition of a very, very broad term, and I would like to know exactly what that definition is.
What do you mean by subcultural traits? How is music not a "subcultural trait"? Why can we not define subcultures by musical traits? (Not that I think that is what we should do). As far as I can tell, most of the subcultures listed are also identified by their fashions and ideologies as well as by their musical styles. Are fashions and ideology not "subcultural traits" either?
I agree that we need to limit our definition of subculture beyond what is in the textbook, but I think you are limiting it too much. When it comes to punk subcultures, I think there are three things we need to focus on in order to identify a subculture. Music is the first, fashion the second, and ideology the third. Technically, a group with a unique style of any of these things is a subculture, but I think we should limit it to two or three to avoid the problem of just listing musical styles alone as subcultures, for the sake of narrowing the term. A group with unique music, fashion, and ideology would for sure qualify as a subculture we can include in this article, but a case can be made for groups with just two. For example, Nazi punks definitely have different fashions (I am counting symbols as fashions) and ideology from the rest of the punk subculture (not that I consider Nazi punks real punks, but that is just my personal opinion), but the differences end there. Nazi punk music is sonically pretty much the same as mainline punk rock or hardcore, but with different ideological content. I do not listen to it, so there might be musical difference I am missing here. I think we can count Nazi punk as a subculture even though it only has two types of styles to call its own. Could you point out the (alleged) subcultures identified by their musical styles alone?
So, why does the one section link to so many music genre articles, rather than subculture articles? Well, because those music genres cover their associated subcultures as well. The Grunge music article is a perfect example. I did notice how that page's topic is about a musical genre, not a subculture. But did you notice the difference between the article's topic and what it actually covers? The topic of the article is not grunge, it is Grunge music. That is the title, if I read right--Grunge music, as opposed to other types of grunge culture. It seems there are other things called "grunge" besides a type of music. So, did you notice how it discusses things other than music in that article? It discusses fashions and attitudes. The topic of the article is the music genre, but it ends up covering grunge as a subculture anyway, much as the Punk rock article used to cover things about punk as a subculture. Punk and Punk rock were the same article before I made that distinction and started the Punk article. Punk rock covered some of the non-musical things that Punk now covers, while being mainly about the music. So yes, I am aware of those distinctions. Of course, not all of them have been made in the form of having two separate articles, nor should they be made in that way. Most of the articles linked to in the section
Punk as a subculture is such a massive beast that it needs its own article separate from the Punk rock article. Other subcultures, however, can be covered by articles just discussing them in context of their music, because, well, these are music-based subcultures. Honestly, I do not think that we need to have separate articles for hardcore punk music and the hardcore punk subculture, even. We can kill two birds with one stone and just have one article covering both. Punk, along with indie, metalheads, and goth, are among the more enormous music-based subcultures out there, and so warrant their own articles as subcultures rather than musical styles, whereas the other, less mammoth music-based subcultures, and the sub-subcultures of the larger music-based subcultures, can be covered alongside their musical styles in the same article.
Do we need a list of every subculture that has a connection? No, I would rather that part not be in the form of a list. I was hoping to mention some of those subcultures for their importance on the formation of punk in the history section, and was planning on moving them there, and some of them are listed because there are fusion subcultures between them and punk, which could be moved to the 'Subcultures within punk section'. Those left over, if they have an important relationship with punk in some other way, would stay in that section. The best way to define something is to show how it relates to other things, and this article's job is to define the punk subculture. If someone knows what hippie is, and we show them how punk was a reaction against hippie, well, they have a better idea of what punk is. Plus, some of it is just plain interesting, like punk's relations to Teddy boy and mod. Ecto 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry, this is so long! Ecto 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things to be done

Made to-do list. Ecto 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC), Ecto 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Ecto 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whew! All double redirects linking to this article have been fixed. Ecto 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk and straight edge

Is straight edge a part of the punk subculture, or a separate subculture in its own right? In my city, straight edge is clearly a subset of the punk scene, but there is not that much of a straight edge scene here to begin with, so I have no idea if straight edge should be put under ‘Subcultures within punk’ or ‘Subcultures which grew out of punk’. Right now, it is under both, and that is too awkward to let stand. How should we classify straight edge? Please feel free to fix its place in the article if you know the answer! Thank you. Ecto 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure. The sXe page says it's "closely associated with punk, hardcore punk, and—more recently—heavy metal music". Kind of ambiguous. I think it depends on where you are--some places it's definitely a part of the punk culture, but I've heard that in some areas it's become quite seperate from the punk scene. Maybe start a seperate section and talk about the dificulty in calling it a part of punk or an offshoot, since it can depend on the situation. The Ungovernable Force 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

SxE is a song performed by Minor Threat, a hardcore punk band and the idea of SxE came from this song by a hardcore punk band so sxe is a subgenre of punk..any questions? no. good.

Actually, I do have a question. Goth grew out of punk, so does that mean that goth is punk? No, not really. Just because sXe originated in the punk subculture does not mean it is part of that subculture. Exactly how far has the acorn fallen from the tree, and is that far enough to allow the acorn to take root to grow into a new tree of its own? In the case of sXe and punk, it is a bit too difficult to call. Maybe someone could google around for some views on the subject. Ecto 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] punk is dead

shoudn't there be an article on how mainstream music took punk and turned it in to a watered down term, and how it stood against everything punk was about?

shouldn't you start it? If you think there should be an article, go write one. It might be deleted, but hey, at least you would have given it a shot. It might be hard to make it neutral though, so be careful. The Ungovernable Force 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a perfect place for what you are talking about in this article, under the 'Mainstream and popular culture' section. That section needs a lot of work and a bit more content. Ecto 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree..but the rules of editing say that u have to have a nuetral point of view and saying that mainstream "punk" bands killed it would be ur personal opinion whether it be true or not.

[edit] Famous punks

Who exactly can we say is a famous punk? I don't think there will be a lot of argument on the point of certain people (at least, not the way the article defines "punk"), but after a large number of people were recently removed I felt it prudent to start a conversation. Obviously Debbie Harry is not a punk (I guess it was because of Blondie...), but is Joey Ramone any more punk than Billy Idol? If Vivienne Westwood stays, Aaron Cometbus probably should too. I completely prefer the new list of famous punks to the one before Force's edit, but I think we need discussion. --Switch 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see Westwood's and Cometbus' names restored, but I think we can leave Idol's and Harry's by the wayside. Westwood is a huge celebrity in the fashion world, and Cometbus is an important figure among zinesters, punk or otherwise. It is important that we give some mouth service to famous punks who are not known primarily as musicians, because this article is about other things besides punk rock. Also, Cometbus is a more recent punk celebrity, which helps towards making the article a look at punk as a contemporary thing. Debbie Harry and Billy Idol should not be mentioned as examples of punk celebrities, because they were made famous by their work outside the punk scene, though I think both have as much claim to being punk as anyone. Ecto 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Doesnt being a famous punk negate the ideology that punk cannot became popular? so shouldnt this section being omitted all together because its personal opinion i mean someone could say the Madden brothers are famous punks and we would all be in uproar and demand them to be taken off and its just not good

Well, try telling the Ramones or Sex Pistols that punk can't be popular. The Dead Kennedys and The Misfits are huge at the moment (though, for some reason, the stores that sell Misfits shoes, wallets and cufflinks rarely actually sell their albums). There's no ideology that punk can't be popular; its abrasiveness to the mainstream changes with the mainstream. No one will claim the Madden brothers are punk, because they have no ties to the punk subculture as defined here, although they could be cited as how elements of punk (i.e. fashion) have entered popular culture in that section. --Switch 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fame and popularity are different things. Fame without popularity is infamy, a type of fame. Adolf Hitler is famous, but the last time I checked, he is not at all popular, making him infamous. I think punk is about being unpopular, rather than obscure, so fame can be a part of it as long as that fame is of the infamous variety. The Sex Pistols were certainly a bunch of showboats (in one case, literally!), and they are (in)famous in part because of that. Back in the day, they were unpopular and famous all at once, which I think is perfectly punk. Punk is essentially about pissing people off, and it is hard to do that if people have never heard of you! Ecto 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Punk subculture"

I suggest that we move this page to Punk subculture, since the phrase "punk" alone is often used to refer to the music genre, among other things. I just had to change a link in the punk template because it directed here instead of the genre page, where it was supposed to go. I suggest that Punk once again becomes a disambiguation page. For a similar situation, see how Goth was moved to Goth subculture recently. WesleyDodds 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there some way to easily fix all the double redirects that would result from this move, though? Ecto 09:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just did it. here is a list of all the double-redirects we'll have to fix. Let's get started, since it will take a while. The Ungovernable Force 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait, ok, that page is actually everything that links to Punk subculture, including the double-redirects. Only the one's that are indented two places are double-redirects. The Ungovernable Force 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave it to an editor with popups. I really don't have it in me to go through all that. :) Ecto 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I finished, I'm not sure though. I get confused with so many and not being sure whether they are double or single and whatnot. But I think I did all of them, and maybe even some single redirects in the process. The Ungovernable Force 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what happened, someone changed the redirects on the redirect pages before I finished editing all of the individual pages to redirect here. I think I should have thought of that! So that's why I was confused. Anyways, I'm pretty sure it's done now. I need a nap! The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just made punk a disambig page. Do you think we should go start disambiguating all the links to "punk" all over the encyclopedia? I'm not sure if I want to do that. Is it worth it? The Ungovernable Force 06:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother. It would be nice, but doing it manually would be so very wretched. I'd do it if I had an automated browser, but I can't get one. If anyone has one, please go right ahead! If only the punk vs. punk subculture title issue hadn't slipped by mind after I suggested a "Punk subculture" article in Talk:Punk_rock#Punk_reorganization, we could have saved ourselves this problem! Oh well. Ecto 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD on Gabba, punk tribute band

The article about Gabba (band) (doing punk covers of ABBA in the style of the Ramones, and award-winner at a counterculture film festival) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.37.227 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subcultures within punk

Is there something we could do to cut down on the headers? Giving each subculture its own heading makes for a very, very long table of contents, which is why I tried to put this section into paragraphs, but that didn't have the best results. Is there some way we could do this section as a bullet list? Ecto 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor just changed this section back into paragraph form. Should it be kept this way? Ecto 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it to the sections it had before, but made it a bullet list. It makes for better organization and a more clear writing style. All those weird divisions like "asthetic" and "syncratic" were not organized properly, and made things more difficult to read and understand.[User:Spylab|Spylab]] 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab
Good work! That section looks a lot better now, though I'm not sure if it quite fits Wikipedia's style guidelines yet. What about the other sections with similar content, like 'Subcultures that grew out of punk'? Should those be changed into bullet lists, too? I think if one of those sections is a list, they should all be. What do you think? Ecto 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I converted this section into table format at User:Ecto/Punk. It cuts down on the length of the section a lot, as far as word count goes. I'm not sure if it helps or hinders, though. Should this table replace the current bullet list paragraphs? Ecto 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critism

Shouldn't there be a critism section?? I mean every other subculture has critism.Angelofdeath275 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's sourced, notable and neutral sure. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there actually is any articulated criticism of the punk subculture, except from within (You can look up Jello Biafra, Joe Strummer, and members of most of the UK anarcho-punk bands, especially Crass, for that). Mostly, from the outside, it just seems to be the popular stereotype that punks are violent/hooligans/vandals/disrespectful/dirty/etc. --Switch 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fashion

No sign of vivienne westwood under fashion? surely she needs a mention?

[edit] AfD on Minor Threat songs

A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. --Switch 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative punk "subculture"

Nowhere I'm aware of, here on Wikipedia or otherwise, has Conservative punk been flagged as a "subculture". I know there are punks who are conservative, but they do not form any kind of social structure within the punk subculture. There are punks of all political views, and that this one group is smaller than others makes it less notable, not more. The article points only to a website that was a kneejerk reaction to Punk Voter, not a subculture. I'm not averse to a mention in the article, but I don't think it belongs here. --Switch 12:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did get a lot of press coverage as a result of it's uniqueness, but I think I agree with you. It's a very small group and not incredibly notable. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In a day or so, if no-one's objected, I'll be removing the "subculture" reference, and adding a link to the website into the "Ideology" section. Speak up if you want it kept the way it currently is. --Switch 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] punk&comercialism

sell out to die

[edit] Unintentional browser blanking

Could somebody replace the tail end of the article and keep the picture captions without the periods? This article is too large for my browser for me to fix it. Ecto 08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Spylab. Ecto 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, so that's what happened. No problem. Spylab 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Check out the merge proposal thing I put on the article, and look at the articles proposed. Many of them have overlapping areas of interest. The three articles (punk ideologies, punk visual art, and punk fasion) all deal with the subculture. You guys can decide whether "punk rock" is mergable as well. After such a merge, it would make more sense to move this page to a broader catagory such as "Punk." Cluck 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. It's too much information to fit into one article. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We just decided a few months ago that the "punk" article had to be split. Punk rock and punk subculture definitely have to remain separate. Punk fashion is way too big to be fit into this article, which is pretty long itself already. Same goes for punk ideology. Punk visual art isn't huge, but it's beyond stub. I don't much have an opinion on that one. -Switch t 04:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Punk subculture is already a bit too long as it is, and could use some trimming. Punk ideologies, punk visual art, and punk fashion are kind of like daughter articles that leave room for expansion. I would much rather see them elaborated than cut down to fit into punk subculture. Thanks for the proposal, though. Ecto 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: I agree that the articles should remain separate because there is so much content that they should not be all in one article. If anything, the main articles should be shortened, because as has been pointed out in the discussion topic above, the length of this article causes problems for some people's browsers. Spylab 11:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Movement

Who started the punk movement?--Kingforaday1620 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/n/Talk%7EPunk_subculture_76da.html"