Talk:Punk ideologies/Archive 1

message: This section explains the rationale behind descisions the community had made concerning this article.
===Article Title===
This article was originally titled Anarcho-punk ideology, but it was decided that the prefix Anarcho- was to restrictive
because punk ideology embraces more that just anarchist theories and practices. See the discussion below titled Problem with the Article's Name.
===Why the Contents of this Page are not Part of the Anarcho-punk Page===
Anarcho-punk is a subgenre of punk. Anarcho-punk has a culture, history, and ideology (among other things) attributed to it. Each of these represents a distinct concept. A person may have no 
accociation with the Anarcho-punk culture or its history but may still subscribe to many of the
values of Anarcho-punk ideology just from being exposed to Anarcho-punk lyrics sheets or an influencial punk. Additionally, ideas may be discussed on both the Anarcho-punk page and also on this page but this page should discuss them in a way that explains them in terms of punk ideology. For examples, the DIY ethic on this page is written in a way that explains how DIY is seen in ideological terms. This is what distingushes the two pages.
:to that end, I removed the Class War picture because that narrows down "punk ideology" to a particular group and dogma that I don't believe typifies the punk scene(s). *Ria777* 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: Anarcho-punk is a subgenre of punk. Anarcho-punk has a culture, history, and ideology (among other things) attributed to it. Each of these represents a distinct concept. A person may have no 
accociation with the Anarcho-punk culture or its history but may still subscribe to many of the
values of Anarcho-punk ideology just from being exposed to Anarcho-punk lyrics sheets or an influencial punk. Additionally, ideas may be discussed on both the Anarcho-punk page and also on this page but this page should discuss them in a way that explains them in terms of punk ideology. For examples, the DIY ethic on this page is written in a way that explains how DIY is seen in ideological terms. This is what distingushes the two pages.
:to that end, I removed the Class War picture because that narrows down "punk ideology" to a particular group and dogma that I don't believe typifies the punk scene(s). *Ria777* 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Contents of this Page are not Part of the [[Anarcho-punk]] Page

message: ===Problem with the Article's Name===
What's up w/ all the Bad Religion and Dead Kennedys?  Maybe I'm being too narrow but I don't think either one of those qualifies as anarcho-punk (not that I dislike them -- they're just not anarcho-punk).  I understand that they may fit into the ideology given on this page (at least before BR sold out).  Maybe the page title should be "punk ideology" and that would be more inclusive.
I hate to go through and erase so much of another person's work just because I don't feel they fit the category, so I'm asking if there's any sort of consensus on this issue? millerc 08:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah...  Anarcho-punk is a specific form of punk, so how about anarchist punk ideology.  I think BR and DK would then fit, while neo-nazis, straight edge, etc wouldn't since they're not anarchist. millerc 00:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. That's as good as anything I have come up with. Let's let it sit for about a week and see what people reading this thread think. Thanks for your help. TimMony 06:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: How about anarchist ideology in punk or the more lengthy anarchist ideology in the punk scene, for the record, i think "Anarcho-punkism" sounds stupid ;) FrancisTyers 01:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to wonder if the word anarchist or anarcho- should be used in the title at all. The ideas mentioned in the article came from people in the punk movement who might but may not consider themselves anarchists. I'm starting to lean towards millerc's original suggestion that it should be called punk ideology. I think when most informed people hear the word punk they don't think of a specialized form of punk like skinhead, straight edge, or even anarchists; though they may understand that these concepts are associated with punk in certain respects. I think they are more likely to think of a typical punk as a free thinking, anti-authoritarian, "progressive", and, of course, angry thinker. If no one objects to this counter aurgument to my original counter argument, then I will change the title to punk ideology and update all the pages that link to it. TimMony 05:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me, and I see what you mean, after all, from the Propagandhi page: Known to visibly cringe when referred to as anything containing the words "anarcho-" or "punks" ;) -- FrancisTyers 21:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If there's going to be a page on punk ideology, shouldn't it be a comparative look at various common philosophical themes in the punk community?  I can tell you that "anarcho-punks" are not necessarily a huge majority.  Shouldn't, then, this article reflect that?  I think that, while this is a good start, I'm pretty convinced that its still slanted and needs more balance.--Reverend Distopia 21:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What's up w/ all the Bad Religion and Dead Kennedys?  Maybe I'm being too narrow but I don't think either one of those qualifies as anarcho-punk (not that I dislike them -- they're just not anarcho-punk).  I understand that they may fit into the ideology given on this page (at least before BR sold out).  Maybe the page title should be "punk ideology" and that would be more inclusive.
I hate to go through and erase so much of another person's work just because I don't feel they fit the category, so I'm asking if there's any sort of consensus on this issue? millerc 08:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah...  Anarcho-punk is a specific form of punk, so how about anarchist punk ideology.  I think BR and DK would then fit, while neo-nazis, straight edge, etc wouldn't since they're not anarchist. millerc 00:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. That's as good as anything I have come up with. Let's let it sit for about a week and see what people reading this thread think. Thanks for your help. TimMony 06:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: How about anarchist ideology in punk or the more lengthy anarchist ideology in the punk scene, for the record, i think "Anarcho-punkism" sounds stupid ;) FrancisTyers 01:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to wonder if the word anarchist or anarcho- should be used in the title at all. The ideas mentioned in the article came from people in the punk movement who might but may not consider themselves anarchists. I'm starting to lean towards millerc's original suggestion that it should be called punk ideology. I think when most informed people hear the word punk they don't think of a specialized form of punk like skinhead, straight edge, or even anarchists; though they may understand that these concepts are associated with punk in certain respects. I think they are more likely to think of a typical punk as a free thinking, anti-authoritarian, "progressive", and, of course, angry thinker. If no one objects to this counter aurgument to my original counter argument, then I will change the title to punk ideology and update all the pages that link to it. TimMony 05:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me, and I see what you mean, after all, from the Propagandhi page: Known to visibly cringe when referred to as anything containing the words "anarcho-" or "punks" ;) -- FrancisTyers 21:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If there's going to be a page on punk ideology, shouldn't it be a comparative look at various common philosophical themes in the punk community?  I can tell you that "anarcho-punks" are not necessarily a huge majority.  Shouldn't, then, this article reflect that?  I think that, while this is a good start, I'm pretty convinced that its still slanted and needs more balance.--Reverend Distopia 21:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the Article's Name

message: This page should also take a close look at what lead into punk and a look at the first punks: Richard Hell and the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, The Ramones, and in England: The Sex Pistols etc.  It should probably also mention the influence of such bands/people as Iggy Pop, Suicide with Alan Suicide (Alan Vega), MC5, Patti Smith, The New York Dolls, and many others.  This is an excellent start, but we need to address origins as well.  Also, the article only mentions a few bands, there are many missing, particularly brit bands.  It'll be some work, and I'll help.  It needs to be done to create a comprehensive article on punk ideology. (unsigned, but it's User:Sekoh 13 March 2005)
: I would really enjoy reading about how the early pioneers contributed to punk ideology. I would have a hard time doing it myself because I really don't understand how those bands contributed to punk thought. The list of bands isn't very complete for sure. Although I'm surprised you don't see alot of brit bands, at lease we have Subhumans, Crass, Citizen Fish, and Oi Polloi (or are they Scottish). TimMony 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: I just deleted entire sections which were duplicated (pretty much the entire article), I suggest that the list of songs should be moved to a seperate article. --Slark 01:17, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
:Thanks for cleaning that up, I didn't even notice. I'm happy with the songs in the the article but I wouldn't complain if they were somewhere else.TimMony 07:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the list of songs be on a seperate article? 

message: This article as it is makes a whole lot of generalizations about the punk subculture and is heavily US/UK scene oriented. Now, there are a whole lot of punk groups worldwide, some subscribe to certain ideologies, some don't. E.g. Nazi punks certainly don't fit this description, while Sharp skinheads would to an extent. Also, there is a whole lot of bands that simply sing about beer or destructive anarchy, etc. 
For example, I can think of Los Fastidios, a self proclaimed street punk/oi bend from Italy, who take a strong socialist stand, pro-gay rights, etc. I can also think of Serbian Direktori (no article, yet) who are nationalists, anti-communist, etc. 
Does it make sense to keep this article as it is, or would it be better to try and recognize different punk sub-groups and just attempt to describe them? If the article stays as it is, all it can really say is: "well, punks around the globe have different views on everything, but they all consider themselves to be free-thinkers". --Dejan Čabrilo 16:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - FrancisTyers 16:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Certainly :) - FrancisTyers 18:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalizations 

message: Just wanted to thank the contributor at 86.132.94.26 for his additions, especially the Critisism secion. Nicely done. TimMony 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: It was about time someone stepped in and did it, as no one ever thought of it. I'm pleased to be of service. (Chris Henniker 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You're Welcome

message: Is it just me or have some songs (namely 'Walking Contradiction' by Green Day) been deleted from the lists of punk songs? If so, is there a good reason for this or is it just 'purists' deleting what they believe not to be punk? Germs 19:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more biased than saying they are punk. Everyone has their own idea of what is and isn't punk and no one will ever agree. For the record, I don't think green day are punk and they definetely should not be used as an example of punk ideology. Especially when the page specifically talks about how not selling out is important to punk ideology. The Ungovernable Force 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have some songs been deleted from the lists? 

message: I made two edits (so far) to this topic. I think these edits made it less POV.
1) I removed indie kids from this discussion because I don't see how indie kids figure into a discussion on punk rock.  Though there are crossovers, indie rock is its own genre of music, and, other than a DIY ethic shared, I don't see there being definate philosophic crossovers that warrent their being included here.  I almost removed skinheads for the same reason, but it has been argued that some skins are punks (though not all) so I'll leave it for the time being.
2)I changed "not all punks (or skinheads) are anarchists" to "pacifists" because not all anarchists are pacifists.  They may all be anti-militaristic, though I'm betting you could find some self-proclaimed anarchists who aren't (look at all the youth bearing Che Guevarra T-shirts) but I know for a fact (ex. Oi Polloi) that there are anarchist punks who are not pacifists.  This heading was clearly influenced by its author's POV.
--Reverend Distopia 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimilitarism 

message: Who quoted this without attributing its source?  Bad form!  I'm not going to delete it because I'd like to give the author an opportunity to source this.  However, if it isn't fixed, it needs to be deleted.
:: "While there will always be different opinions under the punk banner, the prominent environmental philosophy among punks closely resembles 'Deep Ecology'"*
Let's be a little bit more proffessional here please.Reverend Distopia 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple months since I read that, but I do know it talks about deep ecology being important, so I will back you up on that citation. The Ungovernable Force 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism headline 

message: I'm concerned.  There are maybe ten bands being used as sources over and over and over again.  Epitaph records is way over represented here.  While there are mentions of all of the other genres of punk, when it comes to philosophy, Bad Religion and Dead Kenedys (both of whom I love so don't jump down my throat) are referenced to death.  While I'd say that both bands could be considered important, they are hardly the end all when it comes to points of view in the punk rock community.  This needs work!--Reverend Distopia 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The variety of attributions here is not very wide. 

message: I've nominated this article for deletion.  There is no way for this article to be from a NPOV.  Any list of ethics of a group that has no fomal code is inheantly og. research and non-NPOV.Tombride 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose that someone could edit it from a sociological/cultural studies standpoint and keep out personal POV? Russia Moore 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Ok, allmusic says Skrewdriver are Oi!. Also, allmusic's blurb on the Oi! genre says that Oi! acquired a bad reputation when it was adopted by racist skinheads aligned with the neo-fascist National Front organization. Most bands (and skinheads) took pains to distance themselves from this unsavory element, especially after a number of violent incidents at live gigs; however, a few genuine white-supremacist bands (most notoriously Skrewdriver) were enough to give Oi! a stigma which it never completely shed.  The article on Oi! here on wikipedia mentions that some of the groups were racist, but that others weren't. The ADL's website, although not the best source for music info, does talk about racist Oi! music (with no mention of the largely non-racist nature unfortunately), showing that "reliable sources" as wikipedia would classify them, view Oi! as at least partially racist. Here is a horrible article on nazi music (and I really do mean horrible, this person doesn't know much other than really superficial crap) that implies Oi! is racist (look in the blue box to the right), going so far as to say it was popularized by Skrewdriver (which is complete BS, I know, but again, shows that "reliable sources" as defined by wikipedia consider Oi!, or at least some elements of it racist).  Saying that there weren't racist elements to the Oi! scene is a no true Scotsman fallacy at best, and historical revisionism at worst. Anyway, I'm readding the bit about racism, but I'm clarifying it more, and it should be pretty clear that most Oi! bands are not racist, but that Oi! at least has that reputation. Hopefully we can use this as a compromise (I actually like it more, since I do think Oi! gets a worse name than it should get). The Ungovernable Force 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said myself that they weren't very good sources, but they are what wikipedia policy would consider reliable (which is a fact I tried to emphasize). I know that the original Skrewdriver weren't racist, but their music, even the later stuff, is usually classified as Oi!, rightly or wrongly. I think your current slight rewrite is good, so I have no objections. I'm not presenting misinformation though--it is a fact that many "reliable sources" as well as non-reliable ones consider Oi! to be racist. I even pointed out that it was mistakenly called racist due to media sensationalism, but it is important to state the fact that it is viewed as racist by many, if only to show that it is not entirely (or even mostly) the case. The Ungovernable Force 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oi! racist? 

message: I looked at the "to do" list and I've noticed that it suggested that there should be a section on the relationship between punk ideologies and those of other youth movements. It would be a good idea to see one. (Chris Henniker 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should have been deleted. Although it could have used some work (like most of the rest of the article), I wish Spylab hadn't gotten rid of it, especially when it had just been put up. Do others agree? The Ungovernable Force 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk ideology's relationship the ideologies of other youth movements. 

message: Instead of trying to build an all encompassing article about what "punks" (I use quotes to respect the earlier discussion about titles)do and don't believe, this article would be better if it just talked about the basic elements that most "punks" would consider punk. For instance, environmentalism  while closely associated with some punks and punk groups, isn't really an integral element of punk ideology. Maybe some discussion about what the basic elements of punk are?Y.Pestis 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Punk Ideology 

message: First of all this article tries to lump far too many unrelated and over generalized topics into one thing. Of course some of it made sense to someone at some time, but by now its just a festering pile of half baked, ill written, poory formatted, badly wikified junk. To try to write a meta article encompasing so many unrelated and conflicting things just does not make any sense at all.
:That's a good point. A point that has been made numerious times on this talk page. What is your stragagy for correcting this? TimMony 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What A Load of Crap

message: Subdivide it into liberal, socialist, communist, anarcho-punk, etc.  There is no one punk ideology, as it's so fragmented. Chris Henniker 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible suggestion?