Talk:Punk rock

message: I have never seen the term "Punk Rock" used in the punk subculture in the 1980ies and 1990ies, neither in a conversation, nor in fanzines or books. Case in point is this article in the Encyclopedia Britannica by John Savage, who should know a thing or two about punk.
The first time I became aware of the term "punk rock" was as a derogatory reference to mainstream bands like Green Day and Blink-123 that were not considered in any way related to a punk lifestyle. At least that is the situation in Europe (including the UK). As the article states, the term "punk rock" was a label attached by "rock critics" (i.e. outsiders), so I think that the term used by the people within that specific subculture should take preference.
I am curious what the process is for suggesting renaming an article, which wikipedia guidelines are relevant here, so that I figure out how to contribute to that.
2.203.158.238 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a US/UK thing. Far as I know, Americans distinguish because the term "punk" was already in use and well known by the '50s, basically as a somebody that was low down, untrustworthy and delinquent. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Its specifically an American thing. And adding rock to the end I'm quite sure probably originated in California and or the South U.S South West. They like to add on Rock to everything. It was never called Punk Rock anywhere else. Even in Canada, which shared the early scene. It was called Punk.Starbwoy (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

text: The Cambridge dictionaries say that "punk" means the people who listen to the genre, whereas "punk rock" is the genre in   and in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "punk" in terms of music is simply cited as a synonym for punk rock and doesn't have its own definition in , . Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

text: To some extent it's a disambiguation thing - the word "punk" has many meanings.   As a Brit, I have absolutely no problem with the use of "punk rock" as the title of this article, and would oppose any change.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

text: As I recall from 1976-1977 the term 'punk rock' was in fairly widespread use in the UK alongside 'punk'. (Insistence on 'punk' is a later phenomenon common among people who want to be purist or hardcore.) I would note, however, that the use of the term 'punk' over a number of years before 1976 (and in the US since) obscures the radical difference between what Patti Smith & co. were up to (infected with a dismaying wish to be 'Bohemian') and what the Sex Pistols et al. were doing. (The Ramones, to give them their credit, weren't would-be Bohemians; they were lovable Muppets.)  Despite the fact that the word was in use before 1976 to describe musical genres, 'Punk' started with the Sex Pistols, and all the rest is literature (or 'new wave'). Acorrector (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with those here who affirm that the article should have "...rock" in the title, if for no other reason than that the article is, after all, dealing with the musical genre, not the subculture (there's another article for that).  But, I think there's more to it.  We shouldn't undercount the the role of musical artists who came before the Sex Pistols.  I guess it all comes down to whether one considers "punk" to be primarily a musical or subcultural phenomenon.  Trying to better appreciate the pre-Sex Pistols musical thread might come as an unexpected blessing in a time when "punk" culture seems hopelessly passé.  With all due respect, Acorrector, I think that the Ramones (like Patti Smith) probably understood the whole musical world that punk evolved out of better than a lot of the people who dyed their hair and latched onto the scene in the wake of the Sex Pistols notoriety circa '76/'77. But, you are right—they did say "punk rock" then. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Patti Smith and the Ramones may have 'understood' better the musical world punk evolved out of, but I still feel the conventionally musicological part of it all was/is secondary. Attitude, including the attitude to playing music, was the most important part. Musicologically the most important part was the desire to shred whatever passed for the musicological. Acorrector (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree.  But, my point was just that the music preceded the whole subculture thing that eventually grew around it.  So, I think keeping it "punk rock" just makes more sense. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

text: it’s *1990s and *1980s Rosiedanugbtugn (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Punk" or "Punk Rock"? 

message: Hey all. While expanding David Bowie's Diamond Dogs article, I have found quite a few sources, notably punknews.org, that consider this album as having a major impact on punk rock, including bands like the Sex Pistols. Yet, I'm surprised that this album is not mentioned once in this entire article, considering a few of Bowie's biographers, and other online sources, have argued its influence on punk. I'm obviously not saying Diamond Dogs directly created punk, but I am wondering if anyone who worked on this page would have any input on this subject, and whether or not there should be a sentence or two about Diamond Dogs in this article? Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that David Bowie gets brief mention in the article as an influence (by virtue of being part of glam rock).  While Diamond Dogs could certainly be considered an important influence, some of Bowie's preceding work is equally so, particularly Ziggy Stardust.  I agree with you that more could be said in the article about Bowie's influence.  If we were to mention just one album, it would have to be Ziggy Stardust (I think there are sources citing its influence on punk). But maybe we could also mention Diamond Dogs and Aladdin Sane?  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie's ''Diamond Dogs'' 

message: I am wondering how an article can be a a featured article even though it has no inline sources cited in the first few paragraphs. --Pgapunk (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Leads do or don't have inline sources and may vary; see MOS:LEADCITE. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources in the first section 

message: https://web.archive.org/web/20040410111708/https://thslone.tripod.com/Punk-bibliography.html
: 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: I've linked all relevant names and bands in the Suggested viewing section even if linked above. I think exceptions to the rule about redundancy are allowed - I did it because some readers might not think of clicking links until they get to this section, thus not needing to search above again, or they might jump to this section to begin with.  --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking names and band names 

message: Does anyone want to discuss adding Sid and Nancy, Jubilee, and The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle to the Suggested viewing section? It's not called Suggested documentaries, right? They'd certainly be appropriate if the article includes punk culture, as opposed to just punk music. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than just documentaries 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should the lead say "The Offspring is an American rock band" or "The Offspring is an American punk rock band"? Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 16:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (Summoned by bot) I might be missing something, but the current lead has neither variant. What's wrong with the status quo? ~ HAL333 17:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on this article, on The Offspring, per WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

text: This doesn’t belong here. It belongs solely on the talk page for the article it’s referring to. NJZombie (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFC#Publicizing an RFC Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 23:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Publicizing the RfC does not mean opening the same RfC on an another article’s talk page. It means providing a link to the talk page of the relevant article. NJZombie (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm fine either way, I just maintain the idea that the listed genre, unless there is literally no other applicable/major genre (ie Sex Pistols), should be as general as possible. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Punk is a very wide genre but I think most punk rockers would say a few bands could be used.
I'm biased as every person is so I will exclude artists like the Sex Pistols, Casualties, etc.
Here is a short list of bands that I believe could be used:
Bad Religion, Millions of Dead Cops, The Dead Milkmen, Black Flag, Germs, Dead Kennedy's, Ramones, Iggy Pop / The Stooges / The Losers, Blink-182, Bad Cop Bad Cop, Circle Jerks, and NOFX.
I feel that Bad Religion, Ramones, or Iggy Pop could be used over the others but each of these bands / artists are important in their own right. ThyOfThee (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @ThyOfThee Any discussion of the classification of Punk is so ironic..... 146.199.238.79 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bands / Artists that should be considered for use as representation of the genre 

message: please fill in a citation for the empty ref you named "s&s 550". -- Fyrael (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing ref 

message: . 197.87.135.242 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Zombies 

message: Someone put in a quote which suggested that the spread of "new wave" in the US coincided with the election of Thatcher as PM, and deleted the reference to MTV.  While the quote may be factual, i.e. "new wave" did happen at about the same time that Thatcher's party won, I must express some skepticism as to the value in inclusion of said statement in an WP article that would suggest causality.  In fact, I strongly suspect, but don't have any time to research the authoritative source, that MTV did have a significant role in exposing youths of America to music their local top 40 station was not playing. I would also suggest that the Conservatives being in the majority in the UK Parliament may not have had quite the same impact on musical tastes.  Unless there is significant reason to keep this statement, I will revert the page back to suggesting MTV's role...DrKC MD (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One's first task upon doubting a source is to read the source and see what it says. Some Google snippets of the book appear to confirm the authors' assessment that Thatcherism was a rightward jump in the UK, accompanied by greater political polarisation and massive unemployment. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The authors posit that this stress caused a creative explosion in music. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to attribute popularity of new wave to Maggie Thatcher?!?