Talk:Punk rock/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Alternative Punk!!!

Where is article about alternative punk?? Alternative punk is also a genre of punk music. Nice day! Sk8tar, 3. august 2007

I've certainly never heard of it, but you're free to write an article if you like.--Gimme danger 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subgenres

OK, at the bottom of this article there used to be a little box filled with all of the many subgenres of punk. now it's subgenres of rock, and a few of the punk subgenres are stuck at the top in the pink-flavored box. I definitely liked the Punk subgenre box a lot better than the Rock one. Now there's no way to see all of the subgenres. Maybe as a compromise we could bring the punk box back and keep the rock one???

but... i dont know how to bring that punk box back. cause i'm a n00b to the wiki.

CrayZsaaron 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

i think there should be something on the co-opting of the term 'punk rock' by skate bands as apposed to other bands influenced by the movement. It seems quite a big 90's issue. --79.64.70.180 11:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't "The Punk Revival" be a section instead of a subsection?

Hoponpop69 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

i Love Green Day. Some Say that it is an emo band but its not. I'm not emo and I love them.--71.179.73.197 21:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this Green Day are far from being emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] second paragraph of lead

There are some grammar issues here: it doesn't really make sense for "music" to be "short" or for something to "express...distinctive clothing styles."P4k 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Copyedited.—DCGeist 01:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.P4k 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Editor John recently eliminated several crucial images from the article. The general employment of fair-use images--and the specific use of several of the images in question was vetted in FAR. The consensus of involved editors has been that these images add significantly to readers' understanding of the subject matter and abide by our image policy. If John would like to argue why any of these specific images in fact do not meet Wikipedia's fair use image policy for this article, he is invited to do so. The images have been restored.—DCGeist 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the onus is on those wishing the images to remain to justify their retention in terms of our policy, and to adjust the relevant images' fair use rationales for every article where their use is claimed to be fair. In the absence of that they must be removed. See a central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Album covers in band articles, yet again. On a merely technical matter, image sizes are not hard-coded per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images; it is policy to let users set their own preferences, which this over-rides. --John 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a free image of Joy Division, kudos.P4k 06:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
John, the images' retention has previously been justified, as the Featured Article status (reviewed this year) suggests. You have yet to make a specific case against the retention of a single one of the images you deleted. As it happens, there are issues with some of the images. Some of the images have lacked proper rationales on their image pages. I identified one--the London Calling image--and rectified the problem. You failed to identify any. Some of the images could be replaced by others that are more clearly significant, as our fair use policy calls for. I identified one--the image accompanying the section on Oi!--and replaced it with a more significant image complete with appropriate rationale. Again, you have identified no such images. We can go back and forth gabbing about whether the images are "justified" in terms of our policy or not--I say yes, you say no, you say goodbye, oops!, I say hello--or we can actually do a little work to improve the article. Try it. It's fun.
And thank you, P4k. I'd love to find a quality free image of Joy Divison...or a quality historical free image of any of the major post-punk bands (a present-day reunion image is clearly not appropriate for the relevant section of the article). I searched for one. I couldn't find one. Say, John, how 'bout you take this li'l job on. Huh? What's that? Not so easy as sweeping a half-dozen images into the dustbin without discussion? Ain't that a kick in the kishkes.—DCGeist 07:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have identified all of the fair-use images in need of appropriate rationales and provided them. All of them, except for the former Oi! image now replaced, meet Wikipedia fair use image policy standards, including those for irreplacability by free images and for significance. Given the article's length, level of detail, and particular subject matter, the quantity of free-use images (six) is very restrained and their selection judicious.—DCGeist 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done for writing the rationales, at least. Unfortunately the rationales also have to be accurate. I do not agree the discussion of Wire's Pink Flag or the Ramones' first album in the article is even close to sufficient to justify the use of these images in the article. Images, as I said, should also not be hard-coded according to our MoS. --John 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The general importance of the Ramones is made clear throughout the first half of the article. The specific importance of their 1976 debut album--already suggested by a common sense reading of the article--is supported by a cited quotation accompanying the image. Unfortunately, the assertion that the discussion is not "even close to sufficient" is not even close to reasonable.
I can imagine why, assuming a certain ideological bent, you might believe discussion of Pink Flag is not sufficient to justify that image's use. (And I must imagine and assume, as you have offered not the slightest explanation, merely a sentiment.) I disagree. I believe it is sufficient per Wikipedia fair-use image policy. The accompanying sourced discussion indicates the pivotal nature of the band; the caption suggests the specific, significantly pivotal nature of this album; the critical sources cited immediately adjacent to the image may be referenced for further discussion of its importance. (See what an explanation looks like?)—DCGeist 17:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why Pink Flag? If we follow your belief that any album cover is fair use here, why not Never Mind the Bollocks, for example? It seems a bizarre choice. --John 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because the article already has the Anarchy In The UK cover?P4k 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --John 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my bad it's a poster, not the cover. That doesn't alter my point at all though.P4k 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it does, which was why I raised it. Given that the album cover fair use images have seemingly been added in a spirit of "anything goes" regarding fair use, how did we end up with Ramones, Pink Flag, London Calling and StrengthThruOi? London Calling is the only one I might agree with, though even this was after my favourite band could really be called a punk band. What about all the other, more "seminal" records out there? Why these four? --John 04:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, John, if you'd bother to actually read the article--including the captions--you'd know why we wound up with those. But apparently you don't want to read. Makes one wonder what you're doing here.—DCGeist 05:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, DCGeist, if you'd bother to actually assume good faith or even use common sense you'd know I had read the article; I edited it at one point after all and it's hard to edit an article without reading it. Your usual incivility excepted, no, it isn't obvious to me why we use these four images, you'll have to explain it to me. Pointing to the consensus where a number of editors agreed these were the best four to use would be ideal. Can you do that please? --John 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to assume then that there is no consensus for having these particular pictures. Let's discuss here which (if any) fair use images we need on the article. --John 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the free images we could be using in this article instead

[edit] FA quality?

I wonder when this article's FA status was last reviewed. I mention it because, in reading it to try to clean up the image use issues I raised above, I noticed four instances of the peacock word "seminal", none of which were quotes. As a rule of thumb, even good articles are expected to conform to the use of encyclopedic language, which seems to rule out words like this. There are other issues with weasel words too; "some" and "sometimes" are highly over-used in my opinion. Would there be support for a review of the article to see if we can get it into better shape?--John 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You know this is Wikipedia, right? (If you're unsure, click on the link.) This is not a professional encyclopedia and does not claim to be one. Maybe you can edit it yourself to put it in the shape you want it, but requesting everyone to adhere to your guidelines is a little ridiculous.Shakesomeaction 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
John, I really don't see the problem based on the evidence you've adduced. Every single one of the appearances of the word "seminal" in the article occurs in a sentence accompanied by a citation of an authoritative source. "Seminal" is not a peacock word wherever it is not a direct quotation; it is only a peacock word if it is an unverifiable characterization. Each of the uses of the term in the article is clearly verifiable, as I've explained. As for "some" and "sometimes," most occurences are accompanied by examples or citations or appear in the necessarily general "Characteristics" section. I'm happy to go through them and see if...er...some couldn't be made more specific. Hardly seems enough there to prompt a review. Any other problems you spotted?—DCGeist 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had removed the offending uses of "seminal" before I read this. It is an unverifiable characterization where it is not present in a source; it is also a defining example of a peacock word in this context. It makes the article sound like fancruft, even though the overall quality of the article is good. Other words that should be used with extreme caution in this sort of context include "iconic" and "legend". "Show, don't tell" should be the principle here. To answer the question, other than some dodgy fair use of images and some breathless-student-journalist writing, no, I don't think there is anything major wrong with the article. At the moment in my judgement it fails the FA criteria on these two grounds though. --John 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The article underwent an FAR back in January, where the page received a massive overhaul. The aricle has changed very little since then. WesleyDodds 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, can you point me to a link to that discussion? If it passed an FAR with four instances of "seminal" (a word actually listed as one to avoid on WP:PEACOCK) and anything like the current (at least arguable) abuse of fair use images, I'd be interested to see just how it passed when two of the FA criteria are: "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." and "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Anyway, I hope my removals of the s-word were in order and that we can all work together to continue to improve the article. --John 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Uhh . . . go to the top of this page. WesleyDodds 07:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing the link to the Featured Article Review. Can you point me to it please? --John 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I found it at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive1. I think we may need to go there again though. --John 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe you can't nominate an article for another FAR until a year has passed. Anyways, the issues you have concern with can hopefully be rectified here; it's really not severe enough for FAR/FARC. WesleyDodds 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're right. It would be a great help in that regard if DCGeist could refrain from reverting every change I make to the article. --John 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the diffs, two of your prose changes I have no objection to, but I wonder if the Walsh and Simpson refs do refer to Patti Smith and Mudhoney as seminal or a synonym; the Mudhoney example in particular is weakened by the removal of the word (why is it necessary to mention then that Mudhoney, out of all the grunge bands, has been described as "garage punk"?) We'll need Geist to clarify, since I believe he was the one who inserted those references. WesleyDodds 07:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, actually Wesley, I consider someone who (a) finds it appropriate to summarily eliminate every fair-use image from a Featured Article without comment on the Talk page and then, after the damage is repaired and the concerns addressed, (b) ridiculously claims, for instance, that the image of the Ramones first album is not even close to sufficiently justified--this person I consider the next worst thing to a troll. I don't feel any need to address his further fabricated concerns.—DCGeist 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I was merely addressing the prose changes at the moment. Haven't even touched the topic of the images. WesleyDodds 20:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:PEACOCK is clear enough about "seminal". We don't tell our readers, we show them and let them judge themselves whether something was "seminal" or whatever. I would have less objection if it was present in a sourced quote, but if we are summarising we should use encyclopedic language. Not "seminal", not "iconic" and not "legendary". These may be fitting on a fansite, but they will not do for Wikipedia. --John 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not quite how it works. certainly we should refrain from jusr sticking such words into articles. However, the terms are appropriate if they are indicated by a source; we credit the source as saying "x is important" rather than doing it ourselves. I remember there was discussion along these lines at the FAC for Michael Jordan. WesleyDodds 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Well, I agree. It is ok to say "Patti Smith called Joy Division 'seminal'" but not ok to say "Seminal post-punk band Joy Division". It's about sounding like an encyclopedia, rather than a fanzine. --John 06:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we really go into enough detail to show why any one particular band is seminal (or similar) in an article on a music genre? I mean if this were about words like seminal, iconic and legendary being used to describe the subject of the article I'd completely agree. But these specific bands are incidental — there isn't enough space to go into detailed explanations of the influence or importance of Mudhoney, Joy Division, the Ramones, Horses, the Sex Pistols, etc. without expanding the article beyond a reasonable length.
That said, I do agree with a select few of John's edits. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, to me it's important because slack language like this betrays untested assumptions in the writing. If we say ""Anarchy in the U.K.", the Sex Pistols' epochal debut single", as one of the captions currently does (actually, that's another point; captions should be more concise than most of these are), we make a judgement. As it happens, I agree that "Anarchy" was a highly significant moment in the history of 20th century music. Others may not and we may not make the judgement for them. Epoch is a real word with real meanings and we may not tell the reader that a single was "epochal". That is why we have WP:PEACOCK, to stop such loaded terms making our articles look like fanzines. It looks better with the slack language removed, reads better. Our readers are smart; they have minds and opinions of their own. They will not be aided by our telling them (in a picture caption) that a single was "epochal". 'Tis the language of the yellow press. Not an encyclopedia.
Thanks for saying you agreed with some of my edits. --John 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to look into this discussion, because I participated in the featured article review.

1. An article doesn't have to wait a year to revisit FAR; three months is the suggested wait period. However, I don't recommend FAR, and think the FAR would be quickly closed if it came there; I don't think a FAR is needed to resolve these issues. FAR is not dispute resolution, and this article is in very good shape. There are other ways to resolve these issues.

2. I don't speak Fair Use and I've given up trying. However, I disagree that the recent FAR necessarily means the images are up to snuff vis-a-vis Fair Use; there has been a lot of tightening up of image use on Wiki, and I suggest that ya'll need to consult an outside party who is knowledgeable on those issues. The two editors I always used to query are no longer active, so you're going to need to snoop around to figure out who to ask. Maybe you can start at Wikipedia:Non-free content and see who you can drag up.

3. If the sources don't use the word "seminal", I'm not comfortable with it; I like to stick pretty close to the sources. If the sources imply "seminal", I'm comfortable with it as a paraphrase, depending on what you all come with for consensus.

John, thanks for the query on my talk page; WesleyDodds and Ceoil worked very hard on restoring this article to featured status and are very knowledgeable editors, so I hope you all can work this out without much fuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism and Homophobia of Punk in the 1970's

I love how this article conveniently ignores the fact of how racist and homophobic the Punk music movement was in the 1970's. Punk fans were were white and felt threatened by the liberal open society of the 1970's. They were especially threatened by disco music, which they felt which they associated with gay and black people. I remember back in the 1970's how intolerant and bigoted Punk fans were. Their magazines were felt with hatred. I noticed that Punk Magazine has the audacity to display some of the pages of their magazines from that period. Take a look at: http://www.punkmagazine.com/vault/vault-main.html and you will see numerous homophobic and racist remarks in many of these pages.24.6.21.209 02:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because some American punk magazine (which I've never heard of despite being a punk fan from back then) printed things you find unpleasant doesn't mean it merits a mention in this article, which is about the musical movement and not a fanzine. Talk:Punk (magazine) might be a better place to raise this. --John 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the op is speaking of the zine created by Legs McNeil. It only ran for three years... Which I don't consider to be a very large chunk of the punk scene. Again, reference is nullified!Shakesomeaction 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
American punks' baiting of disco fans and gays was infantile, but it was pretty much an American thing. For instance, both The Clash and Johnny Rotten were reggae fans, even before their bands made it big. See also Don Letts and Police and Thieves. The English punks of the 70s also used to hang out at gay clubs, which was one place where they could be sure they wouldn't be attacked. Grant | Talk 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You could easily say that about any cultural movement in history. From my experience in the scene, sexuality is something that's quite open and race is not an issue. Sure this comes from an early 21st century point of view, but I think you are applying a stereotype to the culture. Your producing a magazine article for the viewers of this page to see makes no difference because it is one measly article in a magazine that none of us have heard of (thus, removing any respect as a reference). If you show some examples from more respected punk zines, like Maximum RocknRoll, for example, perhaps we would be more inclined to believe your claim.Shakesomeaction 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said more an American thing. No-one aware of the Bad Brains, D. H. Peligro, Afro-Punk (film) etc would say it was an "American punk thing". The UK also has the stain of Skrewdriver and their ilk on its name. Grant | Talk 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the disco article:
The emergence of the punk and New Wave scenes contributed to disco's decline. Anti-disco punk songs began cropping up in 1977. As the popularity of disco grew, so did the number of anti-disco songs. In order to distinguish themselves from Disco fans, Punk and New Wave fans wore safety pins, played their music loudly, and had no qualms about their music being obnoxious. Heavy metal, country-western and rock 'n' roll bands all got into the act as well.
The fact that disco originally sprung from gay clubs provided white American men from rural and socially conservative areas with a specific scapegoat at which they could aim their criticism and let their homophobia hang out. Gay bashing and racism reared its head often in the criticism of disco. In the March/April '78 issue of Punk, John Holstrom succinctly brings to light the folly of disco in a cartoon called "Disco Mania."[1] This cartoon makes numerous homophobic jokes (using the word "fag") and the New Orleans fanzine Final Solution derides disco as music for "niggers" and "faggots."[2] The virulent attacks on not just disco music, but its stereotyped culture came partially as a reaction to a decade of women's rights, civil rights and gay rights battles.
The anti-gay sentiment and unbridled racism (against blacks, latinos and people of middle eastern descent) wasn't new to Punk and wasn't limited to a hatred of disco. Gay bashing was also a reaction against the strong queer influence of early punk. Though such rock 'n' roll heroes as the New York Dolls, Lou Reed and David Bowie all flaunted an ambiguous sexuality, it didn't sit well with many of their fans. Macho boys from middle America seemed especially threatened by the gender-bending.
Some of the anti-Disco Punk/New Wave songs include:
  • D.O.A. -- "Disco Sucks" (1978)(Sudden Death/Quinetessence)
  • Razar -- "Stamp Out Disco" (1978) (Able Records)
  • Vectors -- "Death To Disco" (1979) (Chateu East Records)
  • Rotters -- "Disco Queen" (1979) (Rotten Records)
  • Disco Zombies -- "Disco Zombies" (1979) (Uptown Records)
  • Dirt Shit -- "Discosheisser" (1979) (Razz Records)
  • Skams -- "Discoglin" (1979) (Betong Records)
  • Accident -- "Kill the Bee Gees" (1979) (No Threes)
  • Government -- "Hemingway Hated Disco Music" (1979) (Government Records)
  • Rotzkotz -- "Disco Sound Is Dead" (1979)
  • Johnny Yen Bang -- "Kill the Disco" (1980)
  • Blitzkrieg -- "Rock 'n' Roll Is Dead" (1981) (Blitzkrieg Records)
  • Dicks -- "All Night Fever" (1981) (Radical Records)
  • Rattus -- "Fucking Disco" (1981)(Hilipili Records)
  • Bleach Boys -- "Death Before Disco" (1982) (Tramp Records)
  • Vibrators -- "Disco In Mosko" (Rak Records)
  • Jimi LaLumia + Psychotic Frogs -- "Death To Disco" (Death Records)
  • Victims -- "Disco Junkies" (Victims Records)
  • The Business -- "Smash the Discos" (Secret Records)
  • Chosen Few -- "Disco Tek Wreck" (Chosen Few Records)
24.6.21.209 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, because quite honestly, most of this reads like a tendentious diatribe that has no place in the Disco article. (Hence, I've removed it.) Also, the idea that the sole reason for disco's decline is pure racism and homophobia is debatable and presenting this in an unbalanced way (as it clearly is in the above text) is hugely POV, not to mention constituting original research if this is just your opinion on the matter rather than an established opinion you can quote from verifiable sources. Peter G Werner 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole diatribe was lifted verbatim from this website - http://terminal-boredom.com/antidisco.html - and incorporated without acknowledgment into the disco article. Hence the bizarre collection of incredibly obscure records and the extremely POV tone. Deleted, as per WP:COPY 80.254.147.52 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Maximum RocknRoll" is from the 1980's I am talking about Racism/Homophobia in Punk music during the 1970's NOT the 1980's.24.6.21.209 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You probably have a point, but are you seriously citing a Dicks song as evidence of punk's homophobia?P4k 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyway this is kind of a stock response, but if you want the article to say "70s punk was racist and homophobic" your best chance is to find a reliable source that says that (although even then nothing is guaranteed).P4k 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Also a lot of the responses to this complaint are pretty ridiculous; the op is clearly aware that this is about the genre and not the fanzine and, and complaining that the magazine is irrelevant because it only ran for a few years makes no sense; this is explicitly about punk in the 70s, which was when that (pretty important, I think) zine was published.P4k 04:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Punk's not homophobic. -Skrayl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.32.138 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo "CRITICISM" section

It should be obvious that Frank Zappa's disdain for punk rock is not something that needs to be covered in an encyclopedia article on the topic. As with any substantial musical genre, many people love it and many people have no time for it--such expressions of taste are hardly worthy of encyclopedic note. The editor who has attempted to install this section sought something similar back in March ([1]), not long after the entry had passed its Featured Article Review. This highly POV section received no support then; I would be surprised if it received any now. It has been reverted.—DCGeist 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with DCGeist on this. We have three paragraphs of Frank Zappa criticism - so what. Zappa is not known as a music critic and the paragraphs being inserted are poorly written and don't amount to much. I will revert as well. --David Shankbone 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha. What was it Lou Reed said about Zappa? "The single most talentless individual on earth" or words to that effect. Maybe there should be a "Punk criticisms" section in the Zappa article. Grant | Talk 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television (again)

We have been over this before and the consensus is that Television were never a punk band, although they were closely associated with the NY punk scene. I don't see how anyone could day they had a punk sound, even when Dick Hell was in them. Grant | Talk 10:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we have been through this before. We are careful in the article never to flatly state something like "Television played punk rock." On the other hand, there is no historical argument over the facts: Television was central to the development of the punk scene, the punk movement, the punk look, the punk DIY ethic, and one of its founding members was crucial in the devlopment of what became recognized as the characteristic punk sound. The article currently reflects that history quite accurately. Remember, as our well-sourced sentence at the end of the section explains, at the time "punk" began to be used to describe what has developing at CB's and Max's Kansas City, there was as yet no characteristic sound: "punk rock was not yet defined by the standards of minimalism, speed, and arrogance that later emerged."—DCGeist 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Run that past me one more time...there was no punk sound at the time so Television could be considered punk? Some punks at the time liked Neil Young, Bob Marley, Pere Ubu and Motorhead. Maybe they were punk too then. Grant | Talk 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll run it past you one more time. We are careful in the article never to flatly state something like "Television played punk rock." On the other hand, there is no historical argument over the facts: Television was central to the development of the punk scene, the punk movement, the punk look, the punk DIY ethic, and one of its founding members was crucial in the devlopment of what became recognized as the characteristic punk sound. The article currently reflects that history quite accurately. What is the statement in the article that you have a problem with? (And, yes, maybe Pere Ubu and Motorhead were punk.)—DCGeist 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article

Well, we currently have five fair use images and 14 music samples on the page. We also still have four instances of the word "seminal", none of which appears in the sources (where there are any). One of them even forms part of this sentence fragment: "...is seen by many as the seminal album in the field." Many? Who? Not the reference provided at any rate. At present, the article is in breach of (at least):

  1. Wikipedia:Non-free content; "3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
  2. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms; "Words and phrases to watch for... "seminal""
  3. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words; "So, some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world - Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is some? Consider the radically different answers these questions might have and what the average reader would make of them, and you might understand just how fundamentally lacking is a statement that uses the "what-some-people-say" qualification."
  4. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images; "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended"
  5. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Captions; "Captions should be succinct; more information on the file can be included in the image or media description page, or in the main text."

In the ten days since I raised these concerns in talk, tried to improve the article, and was reverted, I see little progress in the article. I have, on the other hand received some modest support for the points I made. Where do you suggest we go now? Is someone else willing to edit the article to bring it more into line with our guidelines? If I make another attempt to do so, will I be instantly reverted again? Would it be best to get other people involved, perhaps via a Wikipedia:Featured article review? I await your suggestions. --John 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

These "problems" are overstated or entirely chimerical:

1. Given the nature of the article, which is largely a history of a pop music movement, the use of non-free content is minimal and judicious.

2. Contrary to the editor's claim, every use of the word "seminal" appears in a sourced sentence. While as a stylistic point, four appearances of the word in a text of this length may be a bit much, the word must not simply be eliminated tout court, but replaced with language that conveys the same sort of information. When supported by the historical and critical record, "seminal" is not a "peacock term" (it doesn't mean "super" or "awesome"). Please pick up a dictionary like Webster's—seminal: "containing or contributing the seeds of later development." The idea that the word must appear verbatim in the cited source is insensible. When we write an article, we summarize and paraphrase what we find in the much longer source material on which we base our work. Here is a passage from one cited source on Television's Marquee Moon, said by us to be "seen by many as the seminal album in the field" of post-punk:

A quick look at M2's Subterranean will show that the rock quasi-underground of today would not exist without Television. The sparkling clean and precise guitars of Verlaine and Richard Lloyd manage to imbue a simplicity and directness to their multi-part songs and epic solos, allowing the band to preserve their punk spirit while pursuing a thoroughly un-punk muse. The underrated rhythm section of Fred Smith and Billy Ficca played with a precise syncopation that influenced the arrival of countless post-punk and new wave acts.

Have we violated this source by using the word "seminal"? Look, I gather the word happens to appear on some list that strikes fear in the tender Wikipedian's heart. I suggest we would do well to remember one of the cornerstones of our policy and philosophy: WP:Ignore all rules. We will write better articles if we spend less effort on enforcing such abstract lists and spend more time actually reading things worth reading.

3. I have addressed in some detail above the concerns about supposed "weasel words". The editor offers no new details. As before, I fully support bringing more specificity to instances where that actually improves the article—i.e., where such rewriting is practical and informative.

4. Specifying image size seems to work best for this article. The previous vetting under FAR appears to confirm this.

5. The captions, in fact, are appropriately succinct. Their length is unexceptional in comparison to those in many published works on the same topic--they might even be characterized as relatively short. The development of our fair use policy is also a driving force behind the length of some of the captions. There are also many Featured Articles with substantially longer captions.—DCGeist 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is evident that we disagree fundamentally on these issues. What matters is whether your version adheres to our policies and enjoys consensus. I am obviously not in agreement with you over your points above and don't wish to get into pointless bickering with you, which is why I made the suggestion about getting more people involved above. I would merely point out to you that Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms is not "some list" but in fact forms part of our Manual of Style, and is thus considered a guideline on our project. As such, it reflects consensus of many, many users over a period of years. While there are occasions where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules may usefully be invoked, I do not think your wholesale use of it to refute so many well-tested policies and guidelines in one article will hold water. Referring to the Manual of style as being something designed to "[strike] fear in the tender Wikipedian's heart"; the MoS is designed to help our articles be readable and useful to others, and neither of us is a "tender Wikipedian"; I note you have made 16390 edits to Wikipedia so far and that I have made 38578[2], so we have both contributed extensively. This seems a really unhelpful thing to say and I would request that you try to focus on the merits of the content you wish to see retained rather than making judgements on other editors. Finally, I humbly request that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; an official policy here, it describes correctly how hard it can be to see content you have helped create edited by others. --John 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be easier to avoid "bickering" if your assertions here were not so misleading. While Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is core policy and philosophy and should always be kept in mind when contributing here, in fact I in no way made "wholesale use of it to refute so many well-tested policies and guidelines in one article." I invoked it specifically at the end of a detailed discussion of a single one of the five points under contention. You continue to defend a list created in the abstract and continue to avoid dealing with the actual basis for the language used herein—indeed, you have still failed to correct your false claim that sources do not accompany every single use of the word "seminal." As for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, I have seen many other editors contribute productively to this article. Your sweeping elimination of every fair-use image in the article without raising your concerns in Talk was not a productive edit. Your tout court elimination of every appearance of the word "seminal" was not a productive edit. I have clearly indicated above my support--in two separate places--for edits that are practical and informative.—DCGeist 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you get over your annoyance that I did not seek your approval before editing the article. In return I will try to swallow mine at your sweeping reversions of my changes. I would prefer to get on with trying to improve some of the image abuse and student newspaper writing in the article. Feel free to propose your ideas here towards that. As I said though, we know at this point what I think (and what out guidelines and policies say), and we know what you think (that nothing should be changed because you are annoyed with me, as you stated above). At this stage what I think we need is other input from as wide a range of editors as possible. --John 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed, John. You keep making misleading and outright false claims here in Talk and I'm calling you out on them. The claim that I have stated that I am "annoyed" with you—let alone that I think "nothing should be changed" in the article because I am "annoyed" with you—is yet another one of these falsehoods. Keep hyperbolizing and fabricating and I'll keep calling you to account—I'm fine with this process. You have also made unproductive edits to the article (described above) and I have reverted them. I'm also fine with that process. When you change your behavior in relation to this article, you'll find that you no longer need to fantasize that I'm "annoyed." By the way, John, are you still "irritated"?—DCGeist 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, DCGeist, I am not. Do you still stand by "this person I consider the next worst thing to a troll. I don't feel any need to address his further fabricated concerns" or do you agree that at least some of my concerns may be valid? That would be real progress towards improving the article. --John 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, J, obviously I have moderated my position, having chosen to engage with your latest roster of concerns point by point. Let's summarize:
  1. We disagree fundamentally about the use of fair-use images in the article. If you have a cache of free-use images of encyclopedic quality that can be subsituted for the existing fair-use images while improving or at least maintaining the article's current quality, I'd love to see them. If you don't, feel free to concede the point.
  2. We disagree about whether "seminal" is automatically a "peacock word" unless it is a direct quote. You have falsely claimed that its use is not sourced in every case; in fact, it is sourced in every case, and I believe it is a fair paraphrase of the sourcing in each case. I observe that you did not refute the detailed argument I made about the specific case you raised. However, as a point of style, I do believe that four appearances of the word "seminal" in a text of this length is less than desirable and would be happy to see appropriate source-based rewriting of a couple of the instances. [Follow-up: I've edited the sentences on Smith's Horses and Mudhoney based on the sources—now only two "seminal"s, each historically accurate and well supported.]
  3. We disagree about whether there is a notable presence of weasel words in the article ("some" is not a "weasel word" per se, but a perfectly respectable and common English word that is the appropriate choice for millions of worthy sentences). However, we agree that weasel words in general are not desirable. Perhaps you might point out what you perceive as a couple of the worst offenders—preferably instances not accompanied by a source (this may facilitate agreement).
  4. We disagree about specifying image size. Again, the article was vetted and passed in FAR with specified image sizes. However, I'm happy to take a look at it without specified image sizes. If it strikes me that the change has not detracted from the quality of the article, I will support it. If it strikes me that it has detracted from the article's quality, I'll oppose it--in discussion, if you wish to perform the operation in a sandbox; by reversion and discussion, if you wish to alter the article directly.
  5. We disagree fundamentally about the captioning. I observe that you have not refuted a single one of the three specific observations I made on this subject. Feel free to address them at any time or to concede the point.—DCGeist 04:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Good work on removing two instances of the S-word. The article looks incrementally better for this. --John 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Buzzcocks Fast Cars.ogg

Image:Buzzcocks Fast Cars.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is a book that claims X was a succesful mainstream band, and that The Go-Go's were part of the LA punk scene reliable?

I see someone using it as a source in this article to back up these claims, and I can't help but question the validity of the source.Hoponpop69 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Question. It got mixed reviews on Amazon, and seems to be used extensively throughout this article as a source. If it is like Legs' "Please Kill Me," then it definately isn't a very good source. Have a read at http://www.amazon.com/We-Got-Neutron-Bomb-L/dp/0609807749/ref=sr_1_1/002-1278908-8149639?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194221067&sr=8-1 (220.238.161.58 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for weighing in. Can we get some more consensus on this?Hoponpop69 01:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason not to consider Spitz and Mullen's We Got the Neutron Bomb: The Untold Story of L.A. Punk a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As for the specific facts in question: The Go-Go's were definitely part of the early L.A. punk scene. X did not have outstanding commerical success, but Under the Big Black Sun, More Fun in the New World, and Ain't Love Grand! did all chart in the Billboard Top 100.—DCGeist 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see no problem with these facts, though they may need some rewording. Indeed, the GoGo's were a "punk" band early on (many bands changed genre's throughout their careers, cv. Fleetwood Mac, The Lemonheads, and Genesis to name a few). Also, while X may never be considered "mainstream" they did have a national appeal, and did have charting singles and albums. It certainly puts them on the same kind of territory as, say, the Velvet Underground; sigificant to the genre on a national level despite a lack of commercial success.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers Chinese Rocks.ogg

Image:Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers Chinese Rocks.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale corrected.—DCGeist 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of early history

There is no question about the consensus historiography of punk: New York precedes the UK. As a globally minded encyclopedia, I believe we've appropriately featured Australia in between the two larger subsections--highly defensible also on the basis of "first punk recording." The small local scenes that emerged around the U.S. in 1976 are in a somewhat ambiguous position--they are very distinct from the original New York movement, but they are not commonly described as "second wave," which most sources identify as occurring in 1977. Alphabetization by header is clearly not a proper basis for resequencing this history. I believe the structure I've used is the clearest, most historically accurate, and most in accord with our major sources.—DCGeist (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So-called copyediting

I have no doubt that Spylab intends well, but his recent "copyedit" of the New York City subsection--aside from the fine renaming--introduces a number of problems and infelicities that will have to be reverted. A small sample:

  • redundant Wikilinks to terms such as New York Dolls and CBGB, which appear immediately above in the closely related "Pre-history" section
  • superfluous Wikilinks to common dictionary terms such as jazz and feminist
  • elimantion of valuable quote helping place Television in continuity between garage rock and the later, artier forms that would characterize post-punk
  • inexcusable mauling of direct quote on Richard Hell's appearance
  • repeated Wikilinking of CBGB within this subsection
  • unnecessary and redundant gloss of Punk as a "magazine," which is both clear from context and stated in the immediately preceding "Origin of the term punk" subsection
  • infelicitous introduction of form "including:" (in proper American English syntax, the colon in such a sentence specifically eliminates the need for "including")
  • elimination of valuable quote characterizing Voidoids sound and approach
  • improper change of "among them" to "band such as"--no, not "such as"; those three bands specifically

There are a few "copyedits" that are not objectively this bad, but not one of them is necessary. The article will be best served by reversion of the entire attempt.—DCGeist (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Those links are not superfluous, and they are the first times those terms and city names appear in that section. It doesn't matter if certain links appear in other sections, because some people won't read those other sections. The links to words such as jazz and feminism are certainly not simple dictionary definitions, as their long and detailed articles clearly show. That section has way too many direct quotes for an encyclopedic article, and many of the quotes are just the opinion of one critic, and not very profound or interesting. Most of them should be paraphrased, and if people want to read the exact wording, they can check the references.Spylab (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive bluelinking

Editors need to familiarize themselves with best practices for bluelinking. Think before you link. Do we want to focus readers' attention on a link to "jazz" or "left-wing", when there are many far more important and directly edifying terms to link to? Is a reader likely to be confused about what "jazz" or "left-wing" means? If she is, can she find those terms readily in the dictionary? The answers to all these common-sense questions lead us to one very sensible answer: don't link these terms in this context. Please apply a similar analysis when feeling inspired to link other common terms. Consider these comments from three experienced editors in the failed FAC for United States a few months back:

The article appears to be over linked. Wiki links should be limited to those that are directly to the topic. Take the last sentence of the lead:

It remains a dominant economic, political, military, and cultural force in the Western world and around the globe.[7]
All links in that sentence are simply definitional and distractions (with the possible marginal exception of 'western world'). What do they tell the reader about the US?...
Other useless links (nothing to do with the US and hence are merely distractions)... Diversity, border, flora (why not link to 'flora of the UNited States'?)
(Merbabu)

Wikilinking: There seems to be somewhat excessive wikiling in the article. For instance:
  1. Common English words used in their standard sense need not be wikilinked. Examples from the lead: Economy, Annexing, Diversity. Later on: Agriculture, Nationalism, secession (this word has already been used twice before it is wikilinked), moon, resign
  2. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, impeachment, United States Constitution and many other terms are linked multiple times.
  3. Adjectival leads to a disambiguation page. Is the link even needed?
(Abecedare)

I was asked to discuss overlinking. I take a functionalist view to wikilinking: how does it help/hinder the reading experience? Some delinkings may come down to subjective judgement, but given the amount of blue spattering, particularly early on in the article, I'd be inclined to delink dictionary words and the names of countries, unless they're likely to be unfamiliar to many English speakers, or piped to a focused article (such as immigration, which is a good one). Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, Russia could all be smooth black rather than stick-out blue; some are linked more than once, as though we didn't get a chance earlier to digress. "Italian explorer and cartographer" ... well, who wants to interrupt their flow and read the Italy article in that sentence? "Cartographer" and "adjectival" I think people should know; why not remove "and demonymic" (it's not the place to teach us all a new term, unless it's important to understanding the meaning, which it's not—it's redundant). "English"—hello? Same for "Spanish" and "Portuguese"—they're either trivial or just too off-topic to risk diluting the high-value links, the ones you want readers to consider hitting.
(Tony)

Punk rock has been judged of FA quality. Let's keep it that way.—DCGeist (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Links to terms like jazz, feminist, or left-wing are not superfluous, and are regularly linked in other Wikipedia articles. The words you are deciding to unlink seem to be arbitrary, and it seems that there is an issue of WP:Own in this article, based on the recent edit history.Spylab (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. They are, precisely, "superfluous"--as I have explained in great detail. The fact (or, rather, the claim) that they "are regularly linked in other Wikipedia articles" is irrelevant. They are probably linked appropriately in some articles, and probably linked unnecessarily in many others. The words I am deciding to unlink are not arbitrary--I have recently been unlinking words that you yourself have just linked in an already overlinked article. When you desist with your efforts, I can proceed to delink some of the older superfluous and unnecessary links--please see the extensive explanation just above for the basis under which this will be done. As for WO:OWN, my edits have been directed at maintaining and improving the article; I have described here in detail how most of your edits, whatever your motivation, have lowered the quality of the article--from alphabetizing a chronologically structured history to removing standard redlinks to all the rest. Speaking of your motivation, your section header below does suggest you're indulging in a bit of unproductive tit for tat, rather than focusing on places in Wikipedia where you could be making a more positive contribution.—DCGeist (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You can "explain in great detail" all you want, but what you are saying is just your opinion, not absolute fact.Spylab (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, you're just expressing your opinion too, you know. The question is, Who's opinion is more valuable? I've made a detailed argument that you've entirely failed to refute. Your argument consists of—beside your...um...opinion—of this: the words "are regularly linked in other Wikipedia articles." That is a very weak argument, which I nonetheless took the effort to refute.
Since this issue you've raised of "opinion" picks up the theme of your earlier charge of so-called "arbitrary" choices, let's take a look at yours:
  • You desire to bluelink "jazz," a common noun and adjective that appears in every standard English dictionary, but you ignore the more relevant word "genre"--which, after all, is what punk rock is.
  • You desire to bluelink "feminist," a common noun and adjective that appears in every standard English dictionary, but you ignore the more relevant word "aggressive"--which, after all, even more of punk rock is.
  • You desire to bluelink "left wing," a common noun and adjective that appears in every standard English dictionary, but you ignore the more relevant word "political"--which, after all, even more of punk rock is.
Who is this reader you imagine, this reader who knows what "genre," "aggressive," and "political" mean, but not "jazz," "feminist," and "left wing"? What is your conception of punk rock that you want readers to follow threads to articles on such common notions rather than to one of the many articles on topics much more closely related to and revealing about punk?—DCGeist (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two Wikipedia guidelines on what should be linked in articles:

  1. "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully."
  2. "Geographic place names, since many places have similar names, and many readers may be from a distant place."

The words I linked comply with those Wikipedia policies. The reasons you gave for unlinking certain terms are merely based on your own opinions, not Wikipedia guidelines.Spylab (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not. Reading about "jazz" is not an effective means to help readers to understand the punk rock article more fully. If you believe it does, please explain how it does and "genre," say, does not. Reading about "feminist" is not an effective means to help readers to understand the punk rock article more fully. If you believe it does, please explain how it does and "aggressive," say, does not. Reading about "left wing" is not an effective means to help readers to understand the punk rock article more fully. If you believe it does, please explain how it does and "political," say, does not. In sum, please explain precisely how your choices are not arbitrary. Please also explain how your choice of words does not violate the first guideline on what generally should not be linked:
  • Plain English words.
—DCGeist (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with a minimalist approach to linking. Linking should be done judiciously, and usually not at all. As in all these arguments, it is a tradeoff between wiki-principles (as embodied by our guidelines) and an occasional dash of our best rule of all. Negotiating the tradeoff is where it's at. In my opinion, fewer links are better as too many distracts the reader with low value options. --John (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I third that. DCGeist is absolutely correct. Readability is prime. Pedanticism in linking is always wrong. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive direct quotes

Compared to most Wikipedia articles, there are way too many needless direct quotes in this article. There are many quotes that are neither profound nor interesting, and should just be paraphrased and referenced. Also, some of the quotes are opinions of one person presented as if it is objective fact.Spylab (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What is the value of comparison to "most Wikipedia articles"? None. Please take the time to survey Featured Articles on comparable cultural topics before attempting to make such a comparison. The quotes that appear, in fact, are informative and interesting; "profundity" is an insensible standard. It is fair, as you have to done in a couple cases, to identify the relevant critic by name in the article's main text in cases where the perspective of the quote might be debatable--in all cases, however, effort has been taken to select quotes that do not contradict general critical opinion.—DCGeist (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of a sentence that should be paraphrased instead of having a direct quote:

The band's bassist/singer, Richard Hell, created a look including "leather jackets, torn T-shirts, and short, ragamuffin hair" credited as the basis for punk rock visual style.

The sentence is already partly a paraphrase, and nothing warrants putting quote marks around those general terms that anybody could have written. Also, it doesn't say whose opinion it is that those items are the basis of punk rock visual style. Spylab (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting example. Yes, as a quotation that's one of the less scintillating ones. However, it is precise, essentially inarguable, and from one of our leading sources. It's hard to see how it could be paraphrased while retaining the information in the quote, all of which is fundamental and essential. If we were writing our own book on punk, we could write almost exactly the same sentence without quotes and without crediting Jon Savage. In this context, I think we do have to quote it. You are right that the double note callout following the sentence doesn't allow the reader to easily determine that Savage is the quote's source. We can think about how to reframe the sentence to resolve the issue.—DCGeist (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about this specific issue, but I think there are definitely some issues in this article which would interfere with it retaining FA status. It reads like a one-man project at the moment, in my opinion. While I have major respect for your contributions, DCGeist, why not step back for a while and see what others can do with it? --John (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of productive contributions to the article. Some months ago, Ceoil and WesleyDodds moved on to other projects, indeed leaving me as the last major regular contributor. However, since that time, it was Grant65, not me, who was largely responsible for restructuring and expanding the coverage of the Australia scene--a very important contribution. It was Hoponpop69's recent challenge to all of the redlinked foreign band names then without sources that prompted my latest round of work. He focused my attention on the fact that we were weak in that area, as we were on the local U.S. scenes and on the transition from the second wave to the following era. My goal now, as always, is not to "own" the article, but to make it as good as possible, whether I work alone or with collaborators capable of either directly improving the article, like Grant65 (and Ceoil and WesleyDodds before him), or challenging it in a productive way, like Hoponpop69.
On to quotation. What precisely do you mean to indicate besides your knowledge of the extent of my contribution when you write "It reads like a one-man project at the moment"? Can you tell, for instance, what my personal favorite two or three punk bands are? Can you tell my personal opinion of, say, emo? Do you find some place where the discussion of punk's characteristics or the survey of its history veers idiosyncratically from the most respected mainstream histories? (Are you, in fact, familiar with the major writers in the field--Savage, Sabin, Reynolds, Robb?) Please indicate a couple spots where you believe it reads, as you say, like a one-man project and we can discuss.—DCGeist (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't so much in the coverage but in the style that I would quibble with the article just now. As you know, I have a different idea of what constitutes excellent prose from you. The quotes issue that Spylab identifies would probably be an example of this difference in our aesthetic styles. To sum up, I would rather say less and imply more, whereas I think you veer towards a more descriptive style, with more adjectives. I would rather say, hypothetically that: "Band X were active in early 1977" with a reference so that those interested can investigate the nature of the activity, and a wikilink to the article on Band X so those interested can find out more. The current article is still more towards the style "In 1977 Band X released the seminal and iconic album Snotcrust; NME journalist Tony Parsons wrote that the album was 'cool' in his authoritative survey of the epochal oeuvre in 1983." I'd rather the writing in this article was sparser and tighter, more Joy Division and less Genesis, to use a fitting musical analogy. Please forgive me for the parody. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The parody gave me a laugh. It's being compared to f**king Genesis that hurts.—DCGeist (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I knew that was the unkindest cut of all. Sorry. --John (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Proto

Myself I'd like to see a mention of The Deviants, Pink Fairies and possibly Hawkwind in there. They created the shambolic anarchic DIY situationist UK tradition. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was thinking the Brit protopunk graf needed a little plumping up for balance. And I wish we could quote "shambolic anarchic DIY situationist UK tradition." I'll do a little research to locate sourcing for the bands you mention as punk progenitors. How certain are you (or aren't you) about Hawkwind?—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it must be documented that Lydon is a Hawkwind fan. It's pretty well known. The Sex Pistols have been encoring with Silver Machine recently. Mick Farren's book 'Give The Anarchist A Cigarette' details the Deviants history of anti-social behavior. They put out an independent, basically DIY, single 'Let's Loot The Supermarket' way back in '67. Hawkwind and The Fairies started playing out for free in 1970 in direct mockery of music industry principles. Farren imported the MC5 to play at Phun City and then provoked the crowd to the tear down the fences at the IOW fest. The Fairies anthem of the time 'Do It' has since been re-recorded by Henry Rollins. In the early 70s Fairies gigs were often anarchic drug-crazed riots. They were always getting banned, and then re-booked at double the money. They set a template. In 1976 it was the money that Stiff made with their 2nd release - a reformed PF record - that financed the Damned's 'New Rose'. PF guitarist Larry Wallis then produced The Adverts. He was an original member of Motorhead (ex Hawkwind) who provided a greaser counterpoint to punk. By 1976 the underground press had folded and many writers had got jobs with the music weeklies. Farren had become features editor at NME, and was promoting the whole gonzo rock ethic. Hippie chick Caroline Coon had taken over at Melody Maker, and her pal Vivien Goldman at Sounds (she was Paul Rudolph (ex-Fairies) roommate at the time). They all competed to outdo each other on punk coverage. I've not read Savage's book. Does it not say anything about in there? There's a new book on the Fairies just out- details in their article. I almost think it's worth kicking around in a seperate article, and then juicing that for this one. I have a COI as I used to roadie for the Fairies and briefly played in Hawkwind. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh and, here's a killer cite for you. Mick Jones & Tony James, now of Carbon/Silicon speaking of how they came to form the London SS. “Jones and James realised that they were kindred spirits. “We were into the same bands, we both read Creem [a US rock magazine] and we were both reading Mick Farren’s The Tale of Willy’s Rats – and I’ve never met anyone else who’s even heard of that book, let alone read it,” says James. “So here we are, 32 years later” The 1973 book is a pulp novel, an autobio about a 60's band that get big by being despicably revolting. It can be read in it's entirety (pdf) here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwhatsup (talk • contribs) 11:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff. Savage's book really doesn't have anything on this, except one learns there that the Fairies were one of the bands to play the "First European Punk Rock Festival" in France in August 1976.—DCGeist 14:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me know what you think of what I just added to our protopunk section. We can go into considerably more detail in the protopunk article itself. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Nicely put. I recall reading that it was in the bus on the way back from that Mont-de-Marsan show that Larry Wallis gave Ray Burns his nickname. I'll go look at the protopunk article.Wwwhatsup 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be geographically specific

Often articles on popular culture start out writing as if the phenomenon was world-wide. Such articles initially take a rather myopic point of view not noticing that the phenomenon is specific to a certain place or certain sets of places. It may historically then spread elsewhere, however, my point is that we need to be specific about the rise of punk rock. Where did it arise? Among who? Which class(es)? What ethnicity? Gender specificities?

By glossing over these important specifics, the unintended effect is to write a white man's history as if it were the history of everyone elses.

-C. Ho

Your observations are confounding from the get-go, as this article very plainly does not "start out writing as if the phenomenon was world-wide." The article is thoroughly geographically specific. It directly addresses and answers the question, Where did it (i.e., punk) arise? You have misstated your next question--it should be, "Among whom?"--but the article deals with that as well: The question of gender is addressed at various points. The article's illustrations indicate the predominant racial makeup of punk's participants, and the matter of race is directly addressed in the text at an appropriate point. Do you believe coverage of race is inadequate? Where, then, in the article would you start adding the word "white" or "Caucasian" or whatever your favored term is?
Insofar as ethnicity is significant to the development of punk, it may largely be deduced from the very specific geographical information provided (i.e., a lot of Anglo-Saxon-Jute and Celtic ethnics were involved). At least one scholarly tome has focused on the Jewish contribution to punk rock. Do you consider Jews an ethnicity? (If you do, I'm a-Chosen!) Is that the information you wish to see added? As for the class origins of punk rock, while the article does address class issues in the Punk transforms section, indeed it does not directly deal with them in the Early history section. What is your proposal for improvement? Do you believe the socioeconomic class that each early punk artist was born into should be determined and then provided in the article? In fact, the early punk artists identified with a range of socioeconomic classes--as is suggested in the introductory part of the Punk transforms section. You have tendered us your boilerplate. We now await your first suggestions specific to this article.—DCGeist (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the huge amount of redlink bands?

Every day this article looks less and less like a featured article.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does the number of redlinks have to do with featured article status? The significance of every single redlinked band to the development of punk is appropriately sourced. Perhaps the number of redlinks indicates how thoroughly researched and how worthy of featured status the article is. I suppose it conserves mental energy to imagine that punk happened only in New York City and England, but that's just not the case. Given that redlinks appear to offend your aesthetic sensibilities, instead of complaining, why don't you start writing articles about some of these bands that our fellow English-speaking Wikipedians haven't yet gotten around to covering. I suggest Zunō Keisatsu and Urban Verbs as two of the most interesting. Looking forward to seeing your work.—DCGeist (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the majority of the redlinked bands are from english speaking countries your earlier argument about most of them attaining notability outside of the english wikipedia is null. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. The absence of a Wikipedia article in any language is not a test of notability. If a redlink appears for an extended period (say, six months or a year) without an article being written, then we can conclude that one is unlikely to be written and the link code can be deleted. In fact, some bands that were redlinked for several months in the article have had articles written about them, such as King Snake Roost, which was redlinked for at least five months. Aside from the proper redlinking, the appropriateness of mentioning the bands--linked or not--in the article is based, per policy, on verifiable sourcing and a comprehensive approach to the subject.—DCGeist (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leeway

I substituted Leeway for Sick Of It All in the formative NYC hardcore para, but Spylab has reverted it.

I'll look for an alternate source on this. I don't consider Blush to be that reliable, and I'd like to know the exact quote that is being cited. I live in NYC and was around at the time. Other early hardcore bands apart from those mentioned were (Bad Brains), Reagan Youth, and The Mob. Both the latter broke up. By 85/86 (Bad Brains)/Cro-Mags/AF/Murphys Law/Leeway/Warzone was it. Leeway particularly were significant originators of the NYC metal/hardcore hybrid. Only then around 88/89 did SOIA start to make their mark. They can be grouped in the next wave with bands like Madball. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see DC Geist has rewritten. It's much better. But I wouldn't include False Prophets, they while very much on the scene, didn't have a lot to do with hardcore. They were always the odd men out. If you check the audio samples on the NY Thrash cassette, mostly recorded in 1981 - you'll hear that the hardcore on there is The Nihilistics, and the Beasties. The Mob were very much a link between the thrash scene and the later NYHC scene. If you are going to stick with early bands you're going to have to knock out Cro-Mags and Murphys Law. I've asked a pal who knows more than I do to rewrite the NYHC article. He's promised to take a look at it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us get more precise. I know the Cro-Mags and Murphs came a bit later--but as they're very well known (relatively, of course) and still going, I think it is helpful to include them. I'm in favor of substituting for False Prophets per your observation. So as not to let example creep set in--and pending your pal's input--would you suggest replacing them with the Nihilistics or with the Beastie Boys? Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd say Nihilistics since they played more and the Beasties soon moved towards rap. If you are going to put in Murphs and Cro-Mags you should put Leeway in too, and I think say 'followed by' before them Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Archive?

It's about time. The image discussion could be summarized and continue. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I've actually never archived, so if you're familiar with the procedure, please go ahead.—DCGeist (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)