Talk:I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (With Flowers in My Hair)

message: I would argue that the rule 'don't capitalise prepositions' shouldn't apply where the preposition is at the start of a sentence of, in this case, bracketed off clause. So, should the page be moved to 'With Flowers in My Hair'? --Robdurbar 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where I had it originally, but it was moved so I left it as it was, although I thought it looked odd. Sweetie Petie 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited User:Extraordinary Machine, who moved it and seems quite experienced in these matters, to comment. --Robdurbar 10:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the message on my talk page. I thought it made sense to move it to a small "w" since even though the parentheses are there, it's still the same sentence. Anyway, user:Mel Etitis is more knowledgeable about these things, so I'll drop a note on his talk page. Extraordinary Machine 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hippies and punk rock. Secretlondon 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: OK - what "annoys me" - about both the comments below, and the crap-filled article - is that both seem to have been written by people who have philosophical problems with the lyrics, and aren't at all shy about expressing that - ahem - POINT OF FREAKING VIEW.
Feel free to spout off on the talk page, I guess, but it's obviously leaked - and hard - over to the entry itself. All y'all would get their asses seriously laughed out of the employment office if you applied for a job as NPOV writers. "Vapid"? "Irritating as fuck"? "Atrociously banal"? "...annoys me the most....silly woman"? "...punkrock nowadays means absolutely nothing"? "Vapid (again!) and meaningless"?
I'm not defending the song (in fact, I'm not taking any position - or POINT OF VIEW - on it, at all). But some of your criticisms are, well, butthead-stupid. Those who point out the illogic of juxtaposing Punk/Folk, 60s/70s, Sex Pistols/Procol Harum, etc. - miss the exact and, well, fairly obvious POINT of the juxtaposition: both eras (represented by various references: music, dates, events, technology, etc.) were, in the lyricist's mind, times of revolution, freedom, rebellion, anger-yet-hope, etc.
Whoever wrote that "the punk revolution can be viewed as a rebellion against hippie culture" is a blithering idiot -- errr... I mean, that statement needs some SERIOUS explanation, substantiation, etc. (Let's start with the fact that hippie culture probably is most closely associated with Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love, Vietnam (all primarily American phenomena) -- while punk was initially very closely tied to London, the Sex Pistols....get the point, here? Oh - and the two didn't really meet up, temporally -- the whole disco, blow-dry, etc. thing separated them. So - get a fact, Jack.)
I'm not going to clean up the article, for 2 reasons. 1) a reference article about a song shouldn't contain the authors' personal analysis of, and opinion about, the lyrics -- at least, not without some supporting references, at all. And, 2) the stuff I'm referring to is a pile of logical and POV dogshit. Clean up your own poop, you smug-ass little MySpace puppies.
A Doon 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read: WP:NPA & WP:AGF.--Greasysteve13 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV PROBLEMS

message: I'm not going to flag this article since I think it fair to expect that only fans would bother to write about this (and I'm not one, btw - never heard the song because I live in a cardboard box under a bridge in the mountains on a deserted desert isle with my dog, thank god). However, this article is weak; it's simply not writtin in an encyclopedia-type style. It's not the worst I've read on wikipedia, but only because I have no life and spend all my time reading wikipedia articles and I've read some truly pathetic and appalling abuses of the English language, server space, bandwidth, freedom of speech, and my brain. This one isn't offensively bad, it just sucks. How about pausing to think through and organize your thoughts before writing? There is a reason your teachers told you to do so when writing essays. Sure, they were wrong about everything else, most couldn't even add, but they were right about this if nothing else. The article jumps suddenly into declaring the meaning of some lines with no context or indication that we should care. Should we? Why? How about taking that stuff to your myspace page? Or just stay up all night blogging about it. I know I should not just whine here, that I should dive in and change it myself, but a) I don't know squat about the subject and b) like much of the rest of humanity I'd much rather bitch about things than change them, at least right now. Alright - saying it sucks is uncalled for - instead I'll say it needs some work - and I need a nap. EDIT: I'm NOT saying there should be no interpretation of lyrics, nor that the apparent intention of the article is a huge problem - just that it could really use some improvement. Continue in the same direction if you wish, just put some more thought in to high-level organization. Thanks --Fitzhugh 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads like a fanzine - not an encyclopedia entry 

message: Linguistic purists might complain about her use of the indicative mood ("I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker") in the title[2], arguing that the subjunctive mood - "I Wish I Were a Punk Rocker" - would be more grammatically 'correct'.
'I wish I were a punk rocker' would indicate she want's to be a punk rocker now, but doesn't the phrase 'I wish I was a punk rocker' indicate that she wishes she was a punk rocker in the day and age of the rest of the song? Help me out here, I'm not a native speaker. Also, is it really so controversial that some grammar is more correct than other that the quotes around 'correct' are needed? Faffe 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjunctive/indicative mood 

message: I've changed this statement to "Thom could be expressing a desire". Stating that she is "clearly" expressing a desire is either POV or requires citation. 87.114.147.146 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thom is clearly expressing a desire"? 

message: "Vapid lyrics", "silly woman" etc. etc. Wake Up its a fricking POP Song!  Most of the genre is about a catchy tune and maybe a few thoughtful sound bites of lyrical poetey, beyond that we are mostly dealing with literary dog turd (look at some of the Beatles lyrics, walruses on cornflakes???).  Unbless it is claiming to be something more meaningful, Pop music is a chirpy cheap pleasure and indulgence in life. Complaining that it lacks erudite merit is a bit like complaining that a chilli-dog from a street vendor hasn't been served with the same finness as a meal at Claridges. Dainamo 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is a silly woman for singing "super-info highway" when she really means "information superhighway" :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over analysis of lyrics 

message: If this was apparently by "Magdalen MCR Choir", why does the phrase "Magdalen MCR Choir" not appear whatsoever on the Sandi Thom article? Is it because she has NOTHING to do with them?
Why has this been changed to credit "Magdalen MCR Choir" as the artist?
Are humans on planet Earth really so ignorant that this article sat here since June 2006, before someone decided more than 11 entire years later, that the artist being "Sandi Thom" was wrong, and needed a "minor fix"?
Can someone actually provide a RELIABLE source that proves that Magdalen MCR Choir had something to do with this, instead of just saying "minor fix", with no actual source? And for the love of reliable sources, don't bother linking to a source, that uses THIS ARTICLE as their source, because that's like saying "I found out from a guy, who found out from me" --86.25.131.8 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdalen MCR Choir