Talk:Punk rock/Archive 4

message: I wanted to notify people that funny punk is currently up for deletion. To comment, go here. The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny punk up for deletion 

message: While interesting in a useless trivia kind of way, I'm not sure that this section is relevent enough to include in this already-long article. Perhaps it should be its own article (or merged into the punk rock musicians lists), and the Punk Rock article can link to it.Spylab 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Entertaining, but belongs elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about mentioning the practice in the 'Lifestyle' section of the punk subculture article, with one or two examples? Ecto 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Punk rock names/real names'' section?

message: Recent edit calls the band X hardcore. Really? I wouldn't say so at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and Blink-182 is crust. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X 

message: Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if I should have just deleted this or not.  If somebody could let me know the proper process for this, that would be great.
I notice that this paragraph was just added to the article:
Punk music is never played for personal enjoyment; it is an inherently unappealing form of music. It is only ever played to stick it to The Man, and to piss off nuns.
Obviously, this is somebody's personal opinion, and not objective fact.  Do I have the authority to just delete it?
:Hell yeah! Wikipedia is all about DIY. I'll probably get to it though first, but for things that are clearly biased or one editors personal commentary, feel free to delete it (just say why in the edit summary). And since you're new, if you make any mistakes, you'll just be informed of why they're not great and everyone will understand. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks a lot!  And I see you've already deleted it. Cfrydj 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionated addition 

message: A group of articles on songs by Minor Threat are up for deletion. You may be interested in adding to the discussion. --Switch 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD on Minor Threat songs

message: Do you think Green Day is a punk band?
:See the Green Day talk page for extensive, extensive debate on this topic.  But when it comes down to it, Green Day is widely recognized by a number sources to have lead a punk revival in the 1990s.  WesleyDodds 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Punk rock never fully die out.  Read the article.  WesleyDodds 22:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day  

message: shouldn't the article's name be "Punk Music" sense it's not only limited to Rock?
:No, because it's commonly called "punk rock" and punk is a subgenre of rock music.  WesleyDodds 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk Music 

message: "Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex)."
That sentence makes no sense. If you want to change the paragraph, edit the list of bands, but leave the sentence structure as it is (see below), or edit it in a way that it will still actually make sense.
"Some, such as The Misfits (from New Jersey), Black Flag (from Los Angeles), Stiff Little Fingers (from Northern Ireland), and Crass (from Essex) would lead the move away from the original sound of punk rock and towards the hardcore subgenre."
Personally, I think all those bands influenced hardcore somewhat, and sound more like hardcore than the Pistols, but please don't make rash edits guys. Switch 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys... 

message: "While it is thought that the style of punk from the 1970s had a decline in the 1980s…" - Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's true, isn't it? Most of the punk bands went in a more experimental or pop direction in the 80s, and the bands that "stayed" punk were mostly hardcore, weren't they? --Switch 02:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasely POV 

message: The paragraph beginning "Many of the popular indie rock bands of the 2000s…" is a very limp ending. Punk rock should not end with a fadeout. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added a few weeks back and I don't feel it belongs; it's rather tacked-on.  WesleyDodds 05:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limp ending 

message: I strongly believe that So-Cal is it's own type of rock and sort of like a mixture between Punk Rock and Pop Punk (think One Buck Short, Green Day, Weezer and Simple Plan) and I think that there should be a page titled 'So-Cal Rock' about this subgenre. Give me sum feedback, what do you thinks people!! Citikiwi 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Nothing has ever been written about such a genre, Weezer isn't punk or pop-punk, and Green Day and Simple Plan aren't even from Southern California.  WesleyDodds 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So-Cal does have a specific sound which is more poppy but I don't think it's an established genre. I think Offspring is a better example though than the ones you gave. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SoCal is just really pop punk, a lot like grunge was more or less synonymous with Seattle. One Buck Short, Green Day and Simple Plan aren't from Southern California (OBS and SP aren't even from the United States), and Weezer are borderline pop punk at best. Simple Plan sound more like recent "teenybopper" pop punk bands, Green Day sound similar to SoCal pop punk (and more recently like mainstream rock), Weezer are geek rock/power pop, and One Buck Short sound like a modern Ramones counterpart. They don't have much in common, and certainly not enough to be their own genre apart from other pop punk. -Switch 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So-Cal

message: I think it's about time for an archive, as the discussion pasge is getting long and there don't seem to be any contreversial arguements hapening at the moment. I'm not sure how to do it myself so if someone wants to step in for me that would be appreciated. Any objections? (58.105.49.186 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went and archived through the end of October. I don't want to kill anything so recent that many people may not have had a chance to see it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Time

message: It's the way of the world, unfortunately, and inevitable of articles as broad as this, but this page has built suffocating cruft. Looking though the history I see an number of respected editors, and I'd request a copy edit from them. Sooner or later this article is going to come up for WP:FAR, and in its current state, it's going to fail IMO. A few of points that need attention:
*Confused Tense - article mixes is/was/have/had/are/were throughout.
*Regionalism - UK? USA? Australia? Kazakhstan? Maybe attribute genesis to a number of concurrent sources and move on (I know this has been well debated, but County Cork is still under represented in this article, ye bastards)
*Some trite has slipped in:
**"Most punk songs have a verse-chorus form and a 4/4 time signature"
**"Typical instruments: Vocals - Guitar - Bass - Drums"
**"with a snare drum, one mounted or standing tom, one floor tom, one bass drum, hi-hats, one or two crash cymbals and a ride cymbal."
**2Punk songs are normally about two and a half minutes long"
*Listy - to quote sentance fragments:
**"with origins in the..."
**"The cities of..."
**"Songs such as..."
**"United States bands of the mid-1960s such as..."
**"overt sexuality and political confrontation of artists such as..."
**"art rock acts of the early 1970s, including ..."
**against 1970s popular music such as..."
**"role models for the new groups, such as ..."
**"had appeared in Ohio, including..."
**"formed independently in other locations, such as..."
**"had formed their own bands, including..."
**"by those mentioned above. These included..."
**"This reggae influence is evident in much of the music of..."
**"and less minimalist, with bands such as..."
**"polished production, notably bands such as..."
**"dangerous" style in the early 1980s, typified by artists such as..."
**"Early hardcore bands include..."
**"and the movement developed via ..."
**"diverse post-punk bands emerged, such as..."
**"the emerging indie scene and independent record labels such as..."
**"This movement featured bands such as...v
**"Along with the Ramones, such bands as the..."
**"As alternative bands like..."
**"indie labels like..."
**"bands labelled as pop punk include..."
**"which continued into the 2000s with bands like..."
**"and early punk rock. Examples include ..." - Coil00 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the way of the world

message: shouldnt there be more info about the Velvet Underground, not to mention Misfits or Alec Empire AlexOvShaolin 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Misfits contributed little to punk apart from introducing the horror punk subgenre, and don't really warrant more than one mention. The Velvet Underground are not punk, but they are mentioned twice as an important influence. Alec Empire probably wasn't even walking or talking when punk took off. -Switch t 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Velvet Underground were an important precursor to punk none-the-less and groups Melt-Banana and Alec Empire represent the continuation of punk rock. --AlexOvShaolin 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's disputing the former but as mentioned they're already talked about.  As for the latter there are much, much more notable groups mentioned that play a part in the continued development of punk rock.  WesleyDodds 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  groups not mentioned 

message: Self-evidence is not part of an encyclopedia.  Please add a citation as requested, instead of reverting a legitimate request for a citation. Your original research (WP:NOR is not part of Wikipedia, and culturally relevant subjects need just as much research and support as other topics, whether it is your pet or not.  There are some cases where I think self-evident won't cut it, punk rock is not one of them, it's been around a long time and is well researched.  KP Botany 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-evident? 

message: This section is blank. It either needs an paragraph introducing the subsections, or needs to be deleted. Ecto 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I was wondering if a list of punk record labels could be set up. I know this will make me sound lazy, but I honestly don't have enough time nor ability to set one up.
That's a lot of labels.  If there isn't already a page on wikipedia for punk record labels, there should probably be one.  But it would be a mess to make it part of this page.  WesleyDodds 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Record labels

message: Why do we now cite Mick Houghton to tell us what Lenny Kaye's Nuggets liner notes say? Surely the liner notes are, themselves, citable. At this rate, we're going to have an infinite regress: next, we'll be finding someone to cite for Mick Houghton saying Lenny Kaye said this. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was Savage's book that noted that Mick Houghton noted that Lenny Kaye's Nuggets bla bla. It is roundabout, but I never did get that album myself, and have not been able to track down an online reproduction. Your welcome to add a direct cite, if you have a copy lying around somewhere, and can verify. + Ceoil 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nuggets'' 

message: Have sandboxed an alternative structure  here, more or less alons the lines suggested by Justinboden86  above. Idea is to give the early scenes and subgenres their own sections, for clarity and to allow easier expansion later. I'm not married to it though; suggestions welcome. + Ceoil 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: The article is looking a lot better now, but it still is very anglophone-centric. I'd like to see at least brief mentions of how it spread worldwide in the late 70s and early 80s (This is already mentioned in the intro, but nowhere in the main article). I think that the "Emergence of other scenes" and "The second wave" sections would be very appropriate, and are already configured in a way so as to make mention of other countries and bands fairly easy.
To get into specifics, I know that Germany has always had a fairly active scene, and France and Japan produced some notable bands in the late 70s like Métal Urbain and The Stalin.
Does anyone know enough about this to add some information? -Switch t 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, especially given most every country in the world has a local punk scene. A former DJ at my radio station used to do a show about punk rock from a different country every week. The main problem is English-language sources tend not to focus on them, usually due to something as mundane as the language gap.  If someone could direct us to books, articles, or sites about non-English punk rock that would be very helpful.  WesleyDodds 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglophone-centric 

message: The word legacy has two meanings, one of which is;
:"A person who is entitled to acceptance in an exclusive club or organization, due to the person having a family member who was already a member"
As alot of the bands in that section's place within the punk rock is highly contested by fans and bands who were part of the original movement (I'm talking about blink-182, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Green Day and Sum 41)... just "Recent developments" should be used, for the sake of WP:NPOV and so there can be NO confusion or misinterpretations. 
Also "recent developments" by itself, does not attempt to glorify or flower these bands role and give them "credibility". Its just neutral. - Deathrocker 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the problem with the word "legacy".  WesleyDodds 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: legacy isn't just about Green Day etc - it's also about how punk rock influenced music in general, leading to New wave, post-punk, indie, and a few other things. it also helped bring reggae into the mainstream. That's what I think the punk's legacy is. Recent Developments would be more about the state of Punk Rock nowadays. Totnesmartin 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a bit absurd to claim that the success of Nirvana et al is a "recent subgenre development", Deathrocker. It was over ten years ago, so it's not really going to be "recent" for much longer, and they were all grunge, alternative rock or alternative metal bands, so they're not part of a punk subgenre. There's no effective way to describe the effect and influence punk rock has had on popular music in general apart from "legacy". The legacy of punk rock - its lasting influence - is exactly what the section is about. ~Switch t 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legacy" is POV

message: You have managed to turn a page about a musical phenomena that occured mostly in the UK into a USA this, USA that article. The UK even takes third place in order of importance because of one Australian band! I'm afraid trash like this isn't worth reading but despite the best efforts to update the article by people who know what they are talking about, the hordes of patriotic middle class yanks who haven't a clue about anything keep dragging the article down.
Take pictures for example:
USA: Stooges, Ramones, CBGB, Devo, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Green Day
UK: Pistols, Clash, Cock Sparrer
Suggest replacing USA pictures with:
Bowie, Damned, Roxy Club, Joy Division, Crass, Smiths, Active Slaughter
Yanks, please start a seperate article about your own dull plodding rock'n'roll scene.Stutley 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched the Devo pic for Joy Division. Also notice "Legacy and recent developments" does not contain reference to a single UK band! + Ceoil 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about mentioning how post-punk gave birth to gothic rock, but that seems more appropriate for the post-punk article. Otherwise I'm trying to figure how to mention any major British alternative bands from the 80s (Smiths, the Cure, the Mary Chain, Stone Roses, etc.) who, unlike the American bands listed, did not often evolve direclty from punk rock but rather were simply inspired by it.  WesleyDodds 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This touches on a dispute beteen me and Ceoil. London (along with New York) was the key geographical location and (IMO) the Pistols were the classic punk band, and the most important one. That doesn't mean that the story starts and ends in the UK. Nearly all of the key protopunk acts were American, and punk (in terms of number of bands and records coming out) declined quickly in the UK. I was around and buying a lot of records in the late 70s/early 80s, and apart from Oi and "cartoon punk" like The Exploited, by (say) late 1979, punk had gone out of fashion in the UK and there really weren't many UK punk records being released, compared to the Los Angeles/SST Records scene. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, once post-punk came around the British underground largely spat on punk.  British alternative/indie bands of the 80s were quick to call themselves "indie" and rarely if ever called themselves punk.  The US alternative bands of the 80s were more reverent to the ideals of punk, often calling what they were doing "punk" even if it no longer had anything sonically to do with the genre.  A way to sum it up is that while neither R.E.M. or the Smiths would have existed without punk rock (members of both bands listened to it and were inspired by it), Michael Stipe's hero was Patti Smith, while Morrissey's was Sandie Shaw.  WesleyDodds 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The UK legacy early on gave rise to many well known and/or influential bands such as The Cure, Sisters of Mercy, Simple Minds, Big Country, Spandau Ballet, Meteors, Adam and the Ants plus Ireland gave us U2. Oh, and The Specials! Stutley 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those bands (aside from the Meteors) already fit under the New Wave and post-punk headings.  WesleyDodds 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To get around the current bias (which has been worked on since Stutley left his comment, to be fair), New Wave (US) and Post Punk (UK) need to be split; and given even weight. The legacy section should be to be trimmed, to make way for a note on the direct link between 80sindie/90sBritpop, and 70s punk (at least in terms of infrastructure). The link was only severed because an extreamly left-wing early 80's NME ran scared of the seemingly righ-wing OI! movement, and disowned it. It became fashionable again with Noel Gallagher, and these days every second article is about punk (note: two jan 07 UK monthlys are currently cited). As a seperate point, are Skrewdriver really an OI! band? + Ceoil 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In my mind its the compilation albums releases that tie those bands together. I'd rank 4Skins, angelic upstarts; even peter & test tube babies, above early Skrewdriver. I always tought Garry Bushell was a an egit; why is he mentioned. + Ceoil 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am pleased with the changes that have been made, a couple of bands that I think warrant a mention are The Ruts and Slaughter and the Dogs. Maybe more regional sections are needed under the UK e.g. Manchester, Northern/Republic Ireland, the North Hertfordshire Scene. I'm not a very confident wiki editor but I'm good at moaning on at people ;-) Stutley 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with moaning. Manchester definitely  needs to be mentioned. Belfast and Dublin too. The North Hertfordshire scene I'm not aware of, which bands? + Ceoil 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The North Hertfordshire Scene was a joke on my part, because I happen to come from there. North Herts gave us Chron Gen and Rudimentary Peni but the real biggies were goth monsters The Fields of the Nephilim. Stutley 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your attempts to rid Oi! of it's nationalist image aren't working. What you mean Skrewdriver wasn't part of the Oi! scene??? Just because Garry Bullshit didn't put them in a complication album that doesn't means they weren't Oi!. Their sound was Oi!, and the most important is that they were SKINHEADS, their lyrics were about skinheads, and they had a skinhead audience. In my understanding Oi! is the music of skinheads, although non-skinheads were sometimes involved in the Oi! scene. There were many Oi! bands (racist and non-racist) who, like Skrewdriver, never attended concerts, complication albums, and conferences organised by Garry Bushell, but that doesn't mean they weren't Oi!. "However, early Skrewdriver (which wasn't a racist band with that lineup) did have a musical influence on some Oi! bands." False. Noone except from you ever claimed that. Mitsos 15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: UK punk sucks does it? That's why the yanks have been blandly imitating it ever since. It's an attitude as much as anything else and you boys just can't understand that. You'll never be punk, just college kids trying to be, like, really cool or whatever. Stutley 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To reiterate myself, pointless. + Ceoil 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Vs. USA issue is never going to be resolved, and its pointless even trying. Best we can do it try to represent each equally, and not prejudice in terms of amount of text, images or sound files give to either. + Ceoil 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why I say you don't understand: by the time the UK kids had seen it, done it, bought the t-shirt, the yank kids were still getting to grips with it. It came and went, you can sound "punk" but you'll never be punk. The punk attitude shifted towards anarchist no-nonsense lifestyles then into free festivals which eventually led to acid house. All eventually fizzled out in a narcotic haze but of course you wouldn't know living, as you do, in the repressed Americas. I don't know what the "punk" kids get up to nowadays, probably causing mayhem on the internet :-) Stutley 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA USA USA

message: We need someone willing to write a graf or so on emo--I would think as its own subsection in the bottom "Legacy and recent developments" subsection.—DCGeist 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the punk page please, would be better suited to the middle class poseur bandwagon jumper page. Stutley 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, there's some good Emo out there too; Fugazi?? Not much posing with those guys. + Ceoil 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted about this on WikiProject Emo music, although it seems like that place is kind of dead to be honest.  Right now this article basically just stops in the 1990s, doesn't it?  P4k 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that needs to be addressed, but we're going to have a v. long article on our hands if not carefull. Is Emo an offshoot of Alt. rock or just hardcore; could it be covered in the alt rock section? + Ceoil 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess emo was a kind of alt rock as this article describes it, but I think it's probably distinct and important enough to warrant its own section (I just don't know enough to write it, sadly).  Plus the alt-rock section is long enough as it is. -P4k 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an offshot of hardcore, sometimes considered alt-rock. While I feel it's already encompassed by the hardcore section, this is probably the thing we should expand the most on if we need more stuff post-90s.  Either that or mention more of the mass acceptance of punk, like the Rock and Roll Hall of fame inductions and so forth.  WesleyDodds 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the last 6 years are not mentioned then punk looks like a stub movement. 86.41.146.195 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to be talking about recent developements in punk, I think we might consider mentioning Choking Victim/Leftover Crack who have become pretty big in the punk scene and have a pretty unique sound, and probably also folk punk. That's just me. A blurb about emo might make sense too, but most "emo" today isn't very punk at all. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't emo be a section in the hardcore page? Also should there be a queercore section here?Hoponpop69 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without doubt NoMeansNo needs to be mentioned alongside straight edge, in the hardcore secton. 86.41.146.195 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NoMeansNo Doubt?—DCGeist 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo writer wanted 

message: Please rearrange the ideas in the first paragraph of section "Characteristics" into a better order. The paragraph needs a decent flow to be readable.
The introduction is ok.
What the hell does 'while also making a rhetorical fetish of the Sex Pistols slogan "No Future"' mean, anyway? Rintrah 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics

message: The split between the Emergence of new scenes (supposedly dating from 1977, through Crime began in 1976) and The second wave sections is a conceptual train wreck. Anyone have a problem with merging the two (under The second wave header), while maintaining the distinction between those bands that further established the "classic punk" sound and those that deliberately expanded the sonic palette on the way to post-punk?—DCGeist 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Any crucial info missing from The second wave now?—DCGeist 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks and reads better now. + Ceoil 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Early history'' section 

message: We've got Australia in the first graf of our lede. If it's going to stay there (and my sense is that it should), we need more coverage of the scene, particularly its early days. Right now we've got a poignant quote from The Saints in the Protopunk section and that's it. Radio Birdman, Cheap Nasties/The Scientists, The Victims—I know I don't have a feel for this. If you do, dial in.—DCGeist 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Punk rock in Australia. Some of that can be reduced and transferred. I'll see what I can do right now. Grant65 | Talk 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. BTW, Punk rock in Australia is how I'm even able to talk about Cheap Nasties and The Victims.—DCGeist 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My parents were both in the scene, and knew a couple of people (My mum knew - and disliked - Nick Cave in his Boys Next Door days). Maybe I can get them to whip something up, but it's doubtful, and all I've inherited is drunken anecdotes. ~Switch t 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian punk scene writer wanted 

message: Seems to me like most punks have a libertarian bent, which would make far right wing not left wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puddytang (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide authoritative cites identifying (a) "most punks" as "libertarian" and (b) "libertarian" as "far right wing" and we'll be certain to include that viewpoint in the article.—DCGeist 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's oversimplified, largely because the left-right dichotomy is really flawed. I think most people generally feel punk is leftist though. Actually, most people just think it died in the 80s (little joke from the Daily Show, click here to see what I'm talking about). I'm an anarchist leaning towards post-leftism. I think most "punks" are relatively apolitical to a large extent with a bent towards liberalism, but the punks who really are politically active and consider politics to be an important part of punk (such as myself) would tend towards radicalism, and it would be much closer to leftist radicalism than rightist radicalism in most senses. Really, the key feature is anti-authoritarianism, which has manifistations on the left and right. But as a whole, most are liberal in terms of social values and most political punks are highly critical of capitalism. Of course there are exceptions to all this, but that is how it usually plays out, and that seems closer to left than right IMO. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stumbled by here and hope I can help establish consensus...I work at a radio station where we play a lot of punk music. I agree with Ungovernable in that it doesn't boil down to a simple left-right divide. Don't forget that certain ideals (freedom, independence, community, etc.) are variously associated with right and left politics. However, punk politics is most often what you'd call far-left, in my experience. Punk music is scornful of a range of established "left" and "right" music and attitudes, but my impression is that most punk bands are left of the mainstream. A small minority is right of the mainstream. The notion that "the left wing is trying to take credit for punk" strikes me as ludicrous. --Grace 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Puddytang's right, if the article is going to state this it should be cited.  I added "anti-authoritarian" to the intro because I think that is worth noting. -P4k 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left wing punk? 

message: In the last paragraph, "many straight-edgers despise corporate punk".  Look at the article on straight edge for a good explanation.  I think it would be good to link to this article somewhere, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like "straight-edgers" is a term for punk fans.  Many punks despise corporate punk, I don't think this is just limited to straight-edgers. Puddytang 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Verifiability's the only concern here. I found a good hard source that has the advantage of naming names; but it does have the drawback of referring specifically to straight-edgers. If we can find an authoritative source that makes the case for punk fans generally, great.—DCGeist 06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight-Edgers 

message: "The first wave of punk aimed to be aggressively modern. Distancing itself from the bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock, it went even further." futher in what direction?  I'm not sure this is a complete sentence.
Puddytang 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Extensively edited.—DCGeist 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further how? 

message: Somebody should check that the "the"s that are part of band names are capitalized, and that the ones that are not aren't.  Otherwise all the grammer and punctuation looks really good.  Great article!
Puddytang 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's correct, actually. I've always written it as the Clash, the Ramones and the Saints. Not The Clash, The Ramones, and The Saints. I could be wrong - might be worth asking the Language Reference Desk though. --Grace 07:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would cast my vote with the way you've always done it--lowercase "the" in every case. That would be a significant change in the article. At this point, it follows whatever naming convention is used for the title of the Wikipedia article on the band in question.—DCGeist 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the band: It's The Clash, The Saints, The Damned, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks. If the definite article is part of the band's name, (i.e. appears on cover art and the like) it's capitalised; if it is not part of the band's name (i.e. doesn't appear on cover art and the like), but is included for grammatical reasons (i.e., "Hi, we're the Ramones"), it's lower case. That's the way it goes for those articles' titles, that's the way it should be written in articles. People have discussed this at length in the articles on the Ramones and The Smashing Pumpkins, for example. ~Switch t 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Clash or the Clash 

message: Opinions: Do we need individual sentences where appropriate on each of the following, which appear in our very fine infobox, but nowhere in the article: Christian punk, Nazi punk, anti-folk, deathcountry, and (I'm truly in pain) jazz punk? If they have no place in this, the punk rock article, then do they belong in the punk rock infobox? (If I pick up the violin and start playing, after not having touched it for 15 years, I'm instantly jazz punk, right? Or classical punk? Punkical?) Ah...and then (on a happier, if no less discordant note) there's No Wave. Which surely belongs both in the article (as it currently does) and in the infobox (somewhere). Let's remember, vis-a-vis U.S. post-punk's notability, that Sonic Youth came out of the No Wave scene. (Not to mention--my violin stylings would have made me a No Wave star).—DCGeist 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section about the minor subgenres needs to be reworked, partly because the veracity of some of those articles (ie. Punk blues) is suspect. I've been trying to get others to find real sources for them or list them in AFD for ages.  We should sort those out before trying to write descriptions for them, because, honestly, I've found a lot of suspect punk subgenre articles that were started by someone who just opened an account and never used it again aside from creating that article. Jazz punk definitley needs to go.  WesleyDodds 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agreed. It's gone. (From the infobox, I mean.)—DCGeist 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence is life 

message: This section makes no mention of the older meanings of the word, which are relevant. In the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, punky meant rotten - and punk was rotten wood. The Oxford English Dictionary has a first quote from 1795. I'm guessing John Lydon knew of the older meaning when he chose Johnny Rotten as his stage name. The John Lydon article says it refers to his rotten teeth, and I don't have a reference for my claim. Anyone? --Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, mate. Too brilliant to be true. The etymological cleverness, that is. The teeth are right on. Here's a good reference:
[In November 1975], the group's identity had to be finalized. As part of this process of transformation and group bonding, individual names were changed first. Although they'd known Lydon for three months, he was so secretive and mistrustful that he hadn't told the group his surname. John was always spitting, blowing his nose and inspecting his rotting teeth. Steve Jones found this repulsive and used to say to John, "Your teeth are rotten, you look Rotten." The name was annoying enough to stick. (Jon Savage, England's Dreaming, p. 129)
—DCGeist 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have a quote to back this up right now, but I heard it was because of his habit of saying to people "You're rotten, you are" or something to that effect. (Justinboden86 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term punk

message: These lines from The Cure's "Play for Today" are as good a definition of the Punk ethos as I have seen:
:it's not a case of doing what's right
:it's just the way i feel that matters
:tell me i'm wrong
:i don't really care
:it's not a case of share and share alike
:i take what i require
:i don't understand...
:you say it's not fair
:it's not a case of telling the truth
:some lines just fit the situation
:you call me a liar
:you would anyway
:it's not a case of aiming to please
:you know you're always crying
:it's just your part
:in the play for today
--Joesydney 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadowy definition of a shadowy concept

message: Discharge and UK hardcore are not mentioned.
Discharge started at the same time as US hardcore and created a much harder, rawer sound, US hardcore sounds tame by comparison. In terms of influence, go to the Wasted festival which attracts as many foreign as UK punks, I defy you to spot a leather jacket without Discharge written on it somewhere. You won't see too many Black Flag or Minor Threat logos. Stutley 23:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Work them in then! Its your encyclopdia as much as anyone elses... quercus robur 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We got 'em!—DCGeist 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discharge does deserve a mention. Great band with a lot of influence. Though I must admit, I was quite sad to see this video on YouTube. Notice the logo in the upper-right corner? Agggh! Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hello Graham! They've been added to the Anarcho section, I suppose the Anarcho scene was the UK equivalent to the US Hardcore scene but I've always considered Discharge to be a Hardcore band and a bit less political than the likes of Crass and Conflict. Their records didn't come with the obligatory Anarchist reading matter. As for the MTV clip, I might have to start watching ;-) Stutley 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, were the Dead Kennedys hardcore? They ought to be in the Anarcho section IMHO. Stutley 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the DKs were definitely hardcore. They just happened to be unusually interesting hardcore. The Discharge issue is a more problematic one. Is there somebody knowledgeable who'd like to step in and do something on UK 82? I begged and begged for someone to handle emo. No one did (and God knows, I understand), so I feckin' did it. But I gather people who care about things worth caring about actually care about UK 82. (It's not that I don't care...I'm simply ignorant). Somebody go for it. Then I'll copyedit and drive you batty.—DCGeist 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discharge

message: This is 62 kb too long. Sections in this that already have their own article should be shortened, particularly the post punk section.Hoponpop69 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not way too long at all. It's well within the standard limits of article length. Many of Wikipedia's most respected FAs are considerably longer: please see, e.g., Bacteria. This article can be expanded by about 25% without running into over-long territory. And Ceoil has already explained the significance of the post-punk section.—DCGeist 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...Deathrocker, what planet are you calling from? (A) The Anarchy Tour is covered in the article, as it's been for a long time. (B) How exactly did you go about determining that queercore is "non notable" and anything written about it is "nonsense"?—DCGeist 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just moved a few things around (and to other pages if necessary). One of the main things I did was move the detailed explanation of hardcore's connection to alternative rock and particularly grunge.  Such a detailed description is better suited for the hardcore punk page (which badly needs more citations), plus it's already covered more appropriately and logically on this page in the alternative rock section.  I don't mind if the page is long if it needs to be, but we still need to watch out for redundancy and overly-detailed sections not necessary in the coverage of the genre as a whole. WesleyDodds 13:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can write something intelligent and efficient about goth and its ties to punk rock, by all means, go ahead. Deriding content as "barely notable nonesense" (nice neologism!) does nothing to serve the project.—DCGeist 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is way too long

message: Deathrocker, like WesleyDodds before, has noted the close relationship between punk and goth. Is someone knowledgeable willing to write a little bit on the topic? There's nothing sacrosanct about the present organization of the Subgenres and derivative forms section; it can be altered as appropriate. And UK82 (aka UK non/post-Oi!/anarcho hardcore) still could use a well-versed editor's contribution.—DCGeist 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goth is an alternative rock subgenre (in fact, goth bands were among the first labelled "alternative"), and I threw in that bit about the Cure in the section (although without mentioned gothic rock explicitly).  Thus that would be the section to deal with it. I've thought about listing some major alt-rock subgenres, but since punk as a whole lead to alternative rock, I thought the detail was needless.  I don't think we need anything (if at all) more than a sentence mentioning gothic rock's origins from post-punk.WesleyDodds 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that goth calls for more extensive coverage in alternative rock than it does here (and appreciated the toss-in of the Cure). Still, for historical informativeness (oy) and clarity, I believe we could use a couple sentences here about the ancestral lines between punk and goth. Despite my Sisters of Mercy 12-inches, I don't think I have the best feel for the most appropriate emphasis. And I know that a lot of lay readers of this simply won't think to move on to the alternative rock article. Could you write a little bit and place as most effective?—DCGeist 00:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot we can write about the connections, but per Wikipedia:Summary style I think we can and insist we cover it in this article with no more than a sentence or two. I'll try to rework the post-punk section a bit to mention, since it was a strand of post-punk before it truly became a form of alternative rock (and there's bound to be someone who'll insist Joy Division is goth). WesleyDodds 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do that and I'll promise to deal with the Joy Division fans. The first time I ever got seriously stoned was to JD (and, oh Christ, yer post-punk U2 boys), so there I feel qualified.—DCGeist 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat related question: you've been citing the UK version of Rip it Up and Start Again, right?  Because I've got the American version, which is over a hundred pages shorter, so any pages I cite would most likely not match up.  WesleyDodds 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have. The U.S. version is 100 pages shorter? Oy. My initial thought would be to modify all references to align with that, simply on a gross distribution basis.—DCGeist 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goth and UK82 

message: This is directed to the anonymous editor who keeps adding factually incorrect information to the Oi! section (in case he doesn't check the talk page on his anonymous IP account). Here are some direct quotes from Garry Bushell, who was right in the middle of the Oi! scene and would know better than anyone: 
1) Oi never suffered from Nazi violence the way Sham 69 and 2-Tone had; the ag that blemished those early Oi! gigs was strictly football related. 2) Oi's legacy is a world-wide street-punk movement which is vocally pro-working class and against racism, unemployment, state bureaucracy and repression. ...
... Oi found itself on the sharp end of the sort of tabloid crucifixion usually reserved for the more macabre mass murderers. Corrupting its meaning, the same media immediately tried to bury it. Inevitably their version of events was as watertight as a kitchen colander in a tropical monsoon. They said Oi was for skinheads (but it was always more than that), that all skins were Nazis (and only a minority ever were) and that therefore Oi was the Strasser brothers in steel-capped boots (but the bands were either socialists or cynics…).
This comes from http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp Spylab 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually incorrect edits to Oi!

message: Why are there pictures of Sonic Youth and Green Day in the punk article?
Kylie is more "punk" than either of those and she's a talentless whore (in the media sense of course). Stutley 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To illustrate the legacy of the genre. And remember, Sonic Youth were on SST and Green Day were influenced by first wave punk and 80s college rock. WesleyDodds 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punk is an attitude, a state of mind, those bands are Pop Groups that just happen to play their guitars slightly faster than Michael Bolton's backing band. Stutley 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sonic Youth is one of those bands that believe "punk is an attitude, a state of mind".  They even criticized Green Day for not being a real punk band.  Which is of course silly since Sonic Youth is not a punk band either and was more influenced by protopunk like the Stooges and No Wave (not to mention Glenn Branca), but whatever. Oh, and because you called Sonic Youth a pop band and compared them to Michael Bolton's backing band you've demonstrated you've never really listened to the band. Sonic Youth is synonymous for many rock fans with the word "atonal".  WesleyDodds 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But wait, dude...you forgot Sonic Youth's Bad Moon Rising. You don't need to listen to 'em to know they're just some cheap Creedence cover band. (P.S. It looks like we're building a consensus to work Michael Bolton into the article. And it's about time.)—DCGeist 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, this would have been more perfect had I mentioned Bad Moon Rising by name like I was planning to.  WesleyDodds 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an extensive debate about Green Day being punk on their discussion page, but basically it boils down to this: Green Day emerged out of the punk scene along with Operation Ivy in California in the 80s. Their album Dookie propelled punk to the mainstream (Nevermind promoted alternative/"grunge" more than punk), along with the Offspring's 'Smash.' Since then, Green Day have became more popular and have left their punk origins further behind. Their 'American Idiot' album pales in comparison to NOFX's 'War on Errorism.' They are mentionable because they helped make punk big again and were, once upon a time, a punk band. However, they have never been, are not now, and never will be a 'pop group.' Backstreet Boys were a pop group. Monkees were a pop group. There is a difference even you, Stutley, should be able to understand. Sonic Youth I have no opinion on, except to say calling them a Creedence cover band is going a little too far. Justinboden86 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Are you personally attacking me, by insinuating that I could have made one? - Deathrocker 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, It just seems like you're trying to insult DCGeist simply because his opinion differs from yours. Inhumer 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deathrocker is onto something here...I think we should delete all the UK, Australian and German bands from the article and just have american bands. We can include every american artist from Little Richard to Eminem. (Justinboden86 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonic Youth, Green Day

message: This page should also credit raggae as a major influence on punk music as it was highly evident in some of the early punk bands like The Clash and the Dead Kennedys and also in some newer punk like Rancid but is found, however small, in nearly every punk band Thesnoo 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly well known that punk was introduced to reggae by a couple of DJs in London after the punk movement was already well on its way, so it's not really a formative influence. Reggae is mentioned as an influence in the article. ~Switch t 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raggae 

message: I think we should cut down on the "subgenres and derivative forms" and "legacy and recent developments" subsections. Some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects. All we really need to do is give a vague overview and explain the development and differences from punk rock proper. All this excess is in danger of giving undue weight to recent history. Anyone think most of the information on subgenres, derivative forms, legacy and recent development should be moved to main articles (punk revival would need an article), and these sections should be shortened? ~Switch t 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends mostly on how long people feel the article should be. Personally I'm in favour of these parts being given more length but I'm not opposed to a reorganisation...it is a little messy at the moment. (Justinboden86 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Justin. The fact that "some of the sections are even looking better than the main articles on their subjects" is hardly a problem for this article; it just means that a lot of work remains to be done on those other articles.—DCGeist 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After punk rock... 

message: Napalm Death, who were one of the originators of the grindcore style, started out as a peace punk band, sounding like many of their peers in the mid 80's.  Similarly, other early grind bands such as Repulsion and especially Sore Throat had a strong punk background, so I'm curious as to wether any mention should be made of them, either in the hardcore section or the fusion section.
: Its a sub genre of Hardcore Punk, so its in Hardcore Punks infobox. Inhumer 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of grindcore?  No need, perhaps? 

message: They seem way to long compared to the other subections on genres.Hoponpop69 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: for a group consensus see the "After punk rock..." discussion. General agreement was they could be shortened slightly. (Justinboden86 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We shouldn't pander to some notion of an average reader with a short attention span. IMO the structure accomodates a long article, and it can be read in easily accessible chunks. If you see a lack of balance, add to the shorter sections. Ceoil 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ceoil. And, in that "After punk rock..." discussion, I agreed with what you then said, Justin--"Personally I'm in favour of these parts being given more length"--not in shortening.—DCGeist 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just assumed because no one challenged the last comment on that discussion it was considered acceptable. Didn't mean to cause confusion. To clarify my position: there is nothing wrong with the article being too long, but if a particular summary is becoming a little too long winded with some unnecessary or non-notable information it should be cropped slightly. Likewise, if there is notable information not included it should be added. Having a glance at the sections mentioned, they seem to be easily readable and well structured summaries of some very influential subgenres, and do not really require much cropping. (Justinboden86 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed FAR not long ago so shouldn't really need any work done to it. LuciferMorgan 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone else agree that the Post-punk, hardcore and oi! sections have got to be shortened?

message: I started an article on Better Badges, who originated and then made most punk badges in 76-83, as well as printing many fanzines. It was promptly deleted. I've managed to get it restored, but it's still on dodgy ground. If anyone, especially admins, who remembers it would care to comment on the the AfD page or otherwise contribute, it would be appreciated. Wwwhatsup 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Badges

message: Why do people "Green Day's not punk?" When there a lot of other bands that say that they're punk when they're not. Starting with Simple Plan they're no where near punk rock, but they still say "we're a punk band." So think about the other bands that call themselves punk that aren't before say that about Green Day.--69.113.131.124 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, as a Green Day fan, I would say that calling Green Day punk is just as silly as calling them "not punk."  Labels limit people.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the article, though.  Is there something in the article that you disagree with?  I think the article pretty clearly states what Green Day has done for and against the Punk rock community in a rather unbiased way.--JUDE talk 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day 

message: Hey guys, just wanted to say i added an addition to the article called "Deterioration in Punk Rock". This is just some theories I've been hearing lately and I thought it would be a cool idea to add it to the article as an extention of information. let me know what you think.
who keeps deleting my new section in the article? I keep adding it in and someone keeps taking it out... if you think its inappropriate to have this addition to the article, and feel its not necessary or something, please explain why in this discussion page so that we can find out what will work best.. don't just delete it for no reason..-unsigned
*I'm not the one who deleted the section, but I agree that it doesn't belong on  Wikipedia. The whole section was uncited opinion, which does not belong on an encyclopedic site such as this. Wikipedia is for presenting facts that are backed up by reliable sources. Spylab 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to Article

message: The phrase "NDW brought together a diverse audience" is very right. The following "with members of the Krautrock and alternative scenes on one hand, and Nazi skinheads on the other" isn't right at all (and there is no citation, correspondingly). Nazi skinheads didn't play any role in the NDW. NDW started as punk rock with lyrics sung in german (Abwärts, Fehlfarben) and then became mainstream with acts like Ideal, Extrabreit and Nena. The remarkable fact is that german youth listened to german songs for the first time after World War II. That brought Krautrock acts back to life and opened a market for protest song acts, too. Nazi skinheads don't have anything to do with NDW, except for the fact that they belonged to its consumers. But that is true for almost every popular musical style; thus it doesn't belong into the article. 
Please excuse my unpolished writing style. My English has become a bit rusty over the years in Berlin. --Jochim Schiller 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction needed: Punk in Germany / Neue Deutsche Welle 

message: From the article:
Meanwhile, Patti Smith, Siouxsie Sioux, Ari Up, Pauline Murray, Nina Hagen, Gaye Advert, Poly Styrene, and other punk vocalists, songwriters, and instrumentalists introduced a new brand of femininity to rock music: "They adopted a tough, unladylike pose that borrowed more from the macho swagger of sixties garage bands than from the calculated bad-girl image of bands like The Runaways. They went beyond the leather outfits to the bondage gear of Sioux and the straight-from-the-gutter androgyny of Smith. They articulated a female rage that surpassed the anger of the women's movement of the sixties". 
This is cited as Strohm (2004), p. 188. Is this list of performer's Strohm's or ours? The wording here suggests that Strohm's "they" refers to all of these. I suspect not. (The one that had me thinking about this is Nina Hagen, certainly not conventionally feminine, but also not very punk.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionating 

message: What's going on with the in-again out-again revision history on The Kinks and The Who?  The Sex Pistols and the Ramones pretty clearly acknowledged their influence.  Is this article going to indicate that protopunk just magically sprang up without any roots in older rock and roll? Pkeets 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. They're essential to the history. I've found good cites for them--their close links not only to protopunk but punk itself are unquestionable.—DCGeist 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protopunk: The Kinks and The Who 

message: Couls someone take care of the headlines, and stuff? SOmeone clever deleted the whole article, and I just can´t get it the way it was before. Thanks
:Done. Quadzilla99 19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: Currently there is an image of an Exploited album to represent the Oi section, this is only there because a certain editor is a fan of that band. The Exploited are not even mentioned in the Oi! article, and are far less representative of the subgenre than others who are more worthy canditates to have their cover in its place. It should be either...
*A) Cock Sparrer - Shock Troops
*B) Sham 69 - Tell Us The Truth
- The Daddy 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All experienced, nontroll editors know that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable references. The Exploited are arguably not the ideal representative for an album cover in this article, but their absence from Wikipedia's Oi! article only evidences the work that needs to be done there. As for Cock Sparrer, they are described by Gary Bushell as among the "forerunners of Oi!" (he lists Sham 69 as "pre-Oi!") (); Sabin (1999) says Cock Sparrer (and Sham 69) were "co-opted by the Oi! movement" (p. 216). An image associated with the Angelic Upstarts, Cockney Rejects, or 4-Skins from 1981 or earlier would inarguably be appropriate.—DCGeist 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cock Sparrer more representative of Oi!

message: hmm...I just wrote my justifications for Ramones not having girl group influences but it didn't post. Nevermind DC changed it to bubblegum pop and i accept that. My only point is that they extensively covered a lot of surf and pop/rock from the sixties, and in some songs such as 'i don't care' you can hear Joey trying to sound like he has an english accent. But they never come close to being like a girl group, lyrically or musically. And Phil Spector did produce them but he also produced the Beatles and John Lennon, who are not like girl groups.
(Justinboden86 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the more I thought about it, the Strausbaugh cite wasn't supported by much else. They did cover the Ronettes' "Baby, I Love You" on End of the Century--check out their BBC performance complete with string section! Ramones "BILY". But bubblegum was clearly a much more significant influence from early on.—DCGeist 06:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramones

message: Apologies for nominating this article for a neutrality check.  It seems someone else noticed the issue at the beginning of the article at the same time and fixed it while I was in the process of nominating it.  It looks much better now, my thanks to Dan for that.
66.56.208.21 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality check nomination 

message: Can someone tell me (user 65.207.126.33) how on the page for the song "anarchy in the u.k." the two statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" are verified? I tried to remove them 2 or 3 times before because that was clear a view of the person that wrote them and not from fact but it kept coming back.You see, i tried to add a characteristic of punk rock that i found to be true of punk rock and punk rockers from living it over the years and researching it, And i find myself charged with vandalism. Its clear that until i see otherwise that topics on wikipedia is controlled by a handful of people that are only concerned with getting their own point of view across on a topic and don't really look at the true facts of the topic all, most of the time. And they only see if the added statements fit-in with what they personally think the truth is behind the topic. Here the example why i this seems to be true. Recurrently, i posted, under the characteristics section of the punk rock page, the following summery... -"Punk rock is a movement that originated as very aggressive rock music and turned into a full blown sociology and ideology that is Characterized by a group or individual that had a nature and mindset that composes of raw chaos and destruction aimed to cause random harm, unease and fear throughout sociality."- (And the reason i did that was just to sum up the characteristics of the punk rock lifestyle, not to vandalize this site in anyway. And the reason i didn't use quotes in with this summery is because, what quote out all the quotes of punk rock would sum up punk rock? Because there is such a varying range of actions and words can come out of the fundamental characteristics of the punk rock mindset and the nature of it.) And then i went on the page of the punk rock song "anarchy in the u.k." and saw the following statements "-The lyrics can be interpreted as satirical, mocking not only the government but also directionless or purely fashionable rebellion.-" and "-The lyrics are however often viewed as somewhat satirical and light hearted-" and thought i would erase them because they were clearly opinionated and bias and did not backed up by quotes from the band that recorded it. Yet, later on, the quotes that were written on the song's had be put back on and what i had wrote had be taken down and i was accused of vandalizing the site. How did i vandalize the site? I didn't use profanity and i didn't erase someones facts, I just added a paragraph trying to shine some truth on punk rock along with everyone else. And, yet somehow, im accused of vandalism and the reason that i think the person ( User: DCGeist ) gave me the warnings is because he at 1st brought up something i wrote on a massage board sometime ago to somehow prove that i was vandalizing this site....,what does something i wrote about punk rock on another website have to with what i write here?, The admins monitor this website. So i guess he is saying im vandalizing this site ether because hes mad at what i said on another site about punk rock or he just wants his point of view across. So if thats the case just ban me because i thought this place was a free place to post and look up facts not to see the view of a handful of people. Because i don't want people to to that don't know what punk rock is truly about to come here and only see mine or someone options and views of it and take it as unbiased truth and facts. (And im sure this will just be erased also but i don't care. and i would like to say that that i didnt bring this up as something personal. This is what seems to be going on and it needs to be brought up.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.126.33 (talk) 03:09, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)
:Hi, I assume you're a new editor. Welcome to Wikipedia. (I mean this in an entirely friendly way, you know how hard it is to get tone across on the internet.) With regards to your concern about the Anarchy in the UK page, I agree with you; those types of statements ought to be sourced. If you haven't taken this concern over to the talk page, I suggest you leave your concerns there. There is also a punk music project page with places to discuss articles that need developing. 
:I'm sorry that you were accused of vandalism. It's against wiki policy to accuse editors of vandalism without good cause. If it makes any difference, punk rock pages are magnets for real vandalism and I know that after the third or forth revert of the day I feel a little testy as well.
:I remember the edit you made and agreed with the revert at the time. This is a Featured Article, so a lot of thought and effort has gone into the article, especially the lead paragraphs. It's customary to discuss large changes to featured articles on the talk page of that article before making them. So, go for it. Propose the changes you want to make or bring up problems that you have with the article. I'm all ears and I should hope that other editors here feel the same. Again, welcome. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to ask on my talk page--Gimme danger 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The punk rock page and many others are controlled by a handful of people on Wikipedia

message: Raise your hand if you're sick of reverting vandalism from anonymous IPs every few hours. --Gimme danger 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been doing it much lately but I don't mind doing the occasional vandalism revert. It's part and parcel of an article with this much traffic. I don't think semi-protection is necessary. (Justinboden86 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protecting the article 

message: *I feel we should lock this page. For some reason, people think it's funny to destroy the good name of Punk Rock. We should at least lock it down for a while to stop the vandalism.
The good name?  What kind of a punk are you?  It is a high traffic page.  Keep an eye out and revert.SECisek 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this page