Talk:Brisbane punk rock

message: Dear aguycalledryan,
Thank you for responding to my concerns.  I have tried to address your extensive feedback and have tried to take into account the NPOV to suit Wikipedia’s policy.  I have responded to your main issues regarding the article individually below and I have also rewritten the article.  Please read the following response and rewritten article.'''
My main issue with the article
1.	 is the over emphasis that it gives to the political climate at the time, while it is understood that this is a large influence on the scene, it is not what should be comprising the entire article (this would only be the case if the article was, say, Political Backgrounds to Brisbane Punk Rock). 
a.	this could be corrected by dividing the article into a number of sections, 
one with the Background/Influences where you can talk about the political climate, 
b.	and then other sections such as History, Music Style, Notable Bands, 
I thought about doing something like what you say but I prefer to write in the sense of a time line.
2.	Subculture etc where you only discuss the government in a neutral tone if it directly relates to the section (eg if police closed a concert it would be allowable to mention it, but it would be ill advised to proceed to discuss how this act demonstrated the corrupt nature of the government). If you read over WP:NPOV it discusses giving undue weight to a particular component of an article, and Brisbane Punk Rock incorporates many other elements such as Music Style which should be addressed rather than raving on about how the government imposed upon civil liberties.
I agree with what you are saying here and I have deleted most of the political background elements and rewrote most of the article giving, as you originally requested, more emphasis on the major bands.  
 
3.	My second issue, and possibly a larger one, is the blurring between fact and opinion. Many aspects of the article are simply not fact, quotes such as "people were victimized simply for their looks" are presented as gospel when they simply a matter of opinion. Similarly there is a large problem with the sourcing of the article. For the sakes of clarity, I'm going to list every point. 
a.	In the first paragraph, the section on people being victimized. Not only is this POV but all bar one of the references go to another wikipedia article which does not support their claims. The simple fact is a governments decision regarding land rights or the control permits regarding protests does not indicate a desire to victimize a certain group of people. The remaining link goes to a personal website which is pretty well unsourced in its information (all coming from a single person who I couldn't find information on) and is hardly a reliable source. Reliable sources which could be used to support this include official reports, established media journals, something which demonstrates that the government was actually victimising people. 
As regard to the victimization and other elopements of the POV, I hope I have addressed these issues hopefully to your satisfaction but am still keeping the integrity of the culture vs. counter culture dynamic.
b.	The quip about the unjust voting system, unless it can be shown that the Queensland government actually exploited a gerrymander (while a band may be well meaning in its lyrics they can be hardly taken as gospel, a commission, independent media report etc is more valid). The use of "unjust" without sourcing is simply POV 
In light of the POV, I have eliminated this part of the article.
c.	The quips about undercover police and raids without provocation, while "On the Street" may be a media source it cannot explain the activities of the police unless it in turn has been sourced from the police or a related government/independant commission. As I don't have the article I'm relying on you to decide whether or not it does. 
I do believe that this is an honest account however, I have still eliminated this with respect to your POV.
d.	The girl being arrested and interrogated for hours is hearsay, and unless confirmed by official sources (arrest report etc, once again the "On the Street" would need to have referenced these to be reliable) it is simply opinion, not fact 
I have eliminated these elements from the article.
e.	"backlashed to an oppessed society", even though it is sourced is blatant POV
Again, I have eliminated this.
f.	 "plagued by many disasters including regular raids by the Police", once again needs to be sourced. The connection between disaster and raids is clearly POV, the raids (if any) may have been justified by wholly legitimate reasons (searching for drugs, searching for weapons etc) "questioned the heavy handedness of the Police at a raid", needs to be sourced, and the source needs to be reliable (all I can find on the program is that it was on radio, raising questions of possible bias in the presenter). 
In my article below, I have modified the content which leads the reader to form their own opinion on "plagued by many disasters" bit.  I have eliminated the “heavy handedness of the police” comment.
g.	The quip about the protester getting bashed against a police van and subsequently being charged is all based from memory, which is anything but reliable, and also remains unsourced at this point. 
Agreed, and this had been eliminated.
4.	I was going to suggest you post at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, however given the recent AfD and the opinions that the article needs a rewrite I think the removal of POV statements is now more urgent and I may chop a few myself. 
I have rewritten the article in light of this and have pasted it below for your perusal and opinion.  
5.	As I've said before, the article is clearly one of the most researched and most detailed articles to be created on wikipedia, but it may be wise to stop trying to criticise the government and add more information on other aspects of the movement, such as musical style and clothing, outside of the history section. Guycalledryan 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite of Brisbane Punk 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Brisbane punk rock's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "McF":
From (I'm) Stranded: McFarlane, 'The Saints' entry. Archived from the original on 9 October 2004. Retrieved 9 April 2011.
From Hoodoo Gurus: 
From Lindy Morrison: McFarlane . Retrieved 8 April 2010.
From (I'm) Stranded (song): 
From Vampire Lovers (band): McFarlane, 'The Vampire Lovers' entry. Archived from the original on 29 August 2004. Retrieved 12 January 2013.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Brisbane punk rock]] 

message: In order to avoid possible edit warring between bands, bands laundry list should not be culled.
Dr.warhol (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laundry List of bands 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brisbane punk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040809222017/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=342 to http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=342
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401091541/http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/apraawards/musicawards/history/2001Top30Songs.aspx to http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/APRAAwards/MusicAwards/History/2001Top30Songs.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040706084746/http://www.whammo.com.au:80/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=1010 to http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=1010
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040823035644/http://www.whammo.com.au:80/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=806 to http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=806
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040820172854/http://www.whammo.com.au:80/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=861 to http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=861
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brisbane punk rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504182450/http://radicaltimes.info/PDF/Ups%26Downs.pdf to http://radicaltimes.info/pdf/ups%26downs.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315150244/http://reviews.media-culture.org.au/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1891%7CMC to http://reviews.media-culture.org.au/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1891%7CMC
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Brisbane punk band the disables Lil abadon (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the band the disables