Talk:Crass/Archive 1

message: I've just had a phone conversation with Gee Vaucher during which I asked her whether Pete Wright was ever a member of a band called Trapeze- her reply was not to the best of her knowledge... quercus robur 19:07, 17 May 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: NB. Just for the record, I've just spent three days at Dial House with ex members of Crass, who confirmed that Pete Wright was definately never in a band called trapeze, he was in 'some folk band' nobody can remeber the name of, but who never made any records or achieved any sort of fame. He was also the only member of Crass ever to have been in a band before being in Crass, apart from Penny Rimbaud and Gee Vaucher who had been in a performance art group called 'Exit'. quercus robur 21:25, 25 May 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone conversation

message: I think this has evolved into a great page!  Nice work, everybody!  However, I think the second paragraph in "origins" really needs work.  Somebody who feels close to it want to edit that?  heidimo  18:49, 17 January 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Great page

message: :BTW I edited down your refernce to Stratford Mercenaries as I thought this would belong more on the Steve Ignorant page or indeed an article on the band themselves if one gets started. Cheers quercus robur 11:26, 1 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stratford Mercenaries

message: things currently missing from this article that need to be integrated in;
* Stonehenge 1980 when Crass and punks at the festival were attacked by bikers. Ironic as Rimbaud had helped to set up the festival in the first place!
* "Bloody Revolutions" benefit single for the 1979 'Persons Unknown' trial, which raised money to set up the Wapping anarchist Centre, also vioelce from SWP at the Persons Unknown benefit gig at the Conway Hall.
* More about attempted prosecution by Tim Eggar for "How Does It Feel" 
* Obscenity charges for Penis Envy, whcih also involved Flux of Pink Indians and Dead Kennedys
* VAT problems
quercus robur 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing things

message: have added NPOV tag as an anon user insists on contantly re-inserting loaded and POV comments into this article, see 'vandalism' discussion above. It would be good if a 'third party' could look at this passage and decide whether the term 'vandalism' is appropriate in this context, bearing in mind the arguemnts already laid out above (and notwithstanding the personal attacks made) quercus robur 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seriously think that describing spray painting graffiti in a subway station as vandalism is "loaded and POV"?  128.253.214.55 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do. That is why I asked for third parties to comment and help to create a consensus, or else this will go nowhere apart from turning into an edit war. quercus robur 10:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Webster's dictionary.  Vandalism is defined as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property". Do you honestly beleive CRASS did not engage in willful defacement of public property? 128.84.178.83 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have stated my case. You and I will not reach consensus on this, hence the NPOV tag so that some third party can decide whether the term 'vandal' is appropriate in this context. quercus robur 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be in denial about if CRASS's actions meet the definition of vandalism. I think it would be healthy for you if you would explain how spray painting political slogan's in a subway satation is not willful defacement of public property. 128.253.214.55 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no interest in further discussion with you, the section has been NPOV tagged, some one else can decide who is right and who is wrong on this. quercus robur 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, I've just looked at your edit history, seems you have a history of trolling, vandalism and POV additions to articles with the intention of causing arguements. Sorry, life is too short for me to indulge you quercus robur 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PPS, so you admit that you can't defend CRASS, because what they did on the london subways was vandalism and [b]you know it[/b]! 128.253.214.55 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think vandalism is the correct NPOV way to describe CRASS actions since they did deface public property. Their stated reasons for doing so don't affect what members of the band actually did. Mohammed al-Khawal 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote no for vandalism. Their intent wasn't destructive, which is the implication of the loaded term. --Switch 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did they deface public property with thier grafitti? 128.84.178.82 09:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was it 'vandalism' when the Berlin Wall was graffited in 1989 or was that an expression of freedom from oppression? Guess it depends on your point of view, but that was public proiperty as well. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is for wikipedia to judge, only to give the facts, not to say our opinions one way or the others 82.34.177.22 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The berlin wall was public property, people were defacing it, it was vandalism. That is a fact. CRASS defaced london subway stations, london subway stations are public property, ergo CRASS vandalised thwe subway stations. That is a fact, Wikipedia is supposed to report facts. 128.253.214.55 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No its a point of view. Vote 'no' to including the word vandalism in this article. The whole subject as to whether graffitti is art, political comment or vandalism might be better discussed at the graffitti article but doesn't belong here 88.109.211.167 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think any of the people opposing the use of the word vandalism have answered the question of "Did CRASS deface public property with their grafitti?" Mohammed al-Khawal 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because it's a question of their Point of View. PhilipPage 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The more I consider this, the more I lean against using the word here. There is sometihng of a loaded connotation to the word 'graffiti' which I don't believe applies. Equating it as such- 'definition A' meets 'situation B'- would be little different from telling me that putting my terminally ill dog down last week was 'murder.' Saint Mahone 00:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Oxford defines "vandalism" as the "deliberate destruction or damaging of property". Crass didn't deliberately destroy or damage, so that's not vandalism. Whether or not graffiti is vandalism is not a case for this article. Once a general consensus on whether or not graffiti is vandalism has been reached, you can argue that, but not until then. --Switch 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else has removed the 'NPOV' tag, and the troll who started this 'debate' seems to have moved on elsewhere, so can we take it as read that the NPOV tag does not belong on the section in question? quercus robur 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: NO, Crass did damage the london underground by vandalising it with political grafitti. They deliberately spray painted messages on the walls of the subway. Since their actions were not authorised by the administrators of the subway system, their defacement is vandalism. I'm really confused by why so many people are having a hard time with basic english on wikipedia. Mohammed al-Khawal 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one having trouble with English, mate. They did not deliberately damage the underground, because A) Whether or not it was "damaged" (caused physical harm reducing the value, operation, or usefulness) is POV; B) "deliberately" implies intent, and their intent was not to damage, it was a political message. I don't see why you don't get it. --Switch 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag added

message: Have changed the image in the infobox to the Crass logo, I felt this was more appropriate as the band always argued strongly against the 'cult of the individual', and always prefered to be represented by their 'corporate logo', as it were, than by photos of the band. Hope this is OK? quercus robur 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with it. I was going to use the logo originally, but most of the other band infoboxes I saw used a pic of the band so I did it for consistency. I don't care much one way or the other. The Ungovernable Force 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: As well as the usual blatant vandalism and the ho-hum tedious '1976' perpetual re-insertion, there seem to be little bits of inaccurate disinformation being sneaked into this article, I guess this needs keeping an eye on as well, maybe its time to reinstate the protection? quercus robur 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sneaky Vandalism

message: Roll of shame, corporate entities who have been photographed preening in Crass t-shirts as fashion item;
* Ozzy Osborne
* David Beckham
* Alien Ant Farm
:who cares? Certainly not any ex members of Crass, although Penny Rimbaud did tell me that he wrote to David Beckham asking that since david is obviously such a big fan of Crass would he be interested in making a donation to the Dial House appeal... needless to say he never got a reply...
:I did hear that on the Beckham teeshirt the logo was done in pink sequins, which rather appeals to me I must say... quercus robur 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate parasitism

message: Removed links to Chumabwamba and the EX as these bands aren't directly related to Crass, also Current 93 and Thought Crime as these were Steve Ignorant projects, not Crass projects, Thought Crime featured 'guest vocals' from Igs on a recording released in 2004, 20 years after Crass ceased operation, so hardly a 'band formed by Steve Ignorant after Crass split' quercus robur 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irelevant links 

message: I was looking for the word "Crass". I don't know what it means but its something to do with negative behaviour. 86.147.1.221 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the Wiktionary entry for Crass: "Coarse; crude; not refined or sensible". The band took their name from the use of the word in a Bowie song. -Switch t 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crass 

message: Crass released their third album Penis Envy in 1981. This marked a departure from the 'hardcore punk' image that Feeding of the 5000 and its follow up Stations of the Crass had to some extent given the group.
Isn't hardcore a specific term for the fast-tempo punk rock style emerged in the USA from bands like Circle Jerk, Black Flag and Dead Kennedys? I think the quotes just make it look like more inaccurate. Thank you. (unsigned comment moved from archive to 'live' discussion page by quercus robur 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'harcore punk' was in currency in the UK before being applied to US bands such as Black Flag, etc, and was generally used to diferentiate the 'authentic' punk sounds of bands that weren't percieved as having 'sold out' (ie, developed a more commercial, accessable sound, eg, Siouxsie and the Banshees, later Clash, etc, etc). Bands such as Crass, the Exploited, etc, were certainly considered 'hard core' by UK punks around 1979-80, at least a year or two before we'd heard of the likes of Black Flag, Circle Jerks, etc, and I think that that lable was kind of co-opted a bit later by those US bands. Anyway, Crass probably never considered themselves 'hard-core punk', and following Stations of the Crass with Penis Envy was almost certainly a deliberate strategy to ensure that they didn't get pigeon-holed by one particular narrow lable that had associations with leather jackets, suds, bristles, mohicans and aggressively played 3 chord thrash. Of course as I mentioned above, 'hard core' came to mean something a bit different later on, but within the context of the above quoted statement I think it's appropriate quercus robur 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardcore punk 

message: Ok, so the text says, "The aforementioned logo represented an amalgamation of several 'icons of authority' including the Christian Cross, the swastika and the Union Flag combined with a two headed snake consuming itself (to symbolise the idea that power will eventually destroy itself)." The source is an interview in 'New Crimes' fanzine, issue 3, winter 1980. The thing is, I do not and never have seen any indication of the Union Jack, nor of a swastika, except for perhaps elements of a bent swastika, and I have no way of looking at the original source material. I did however come across this altered Crass logo which appears to have been for the Sheep Farming in the Falklands single. The Union Jack is clearly present, and although I still don't see a clear swastika, the elements of a bent one still remain. Is there any way that interview was talking about this logo instead? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No its definately the original Dave King logo that is being refered to, and these elements are definately there. This has been stated by Rimbaud and others in several fanzines and elsewhere, I'll see if i can find another more easily verifiable reference however quercus robur 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok. I trust you know what you're talking about on this one. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The logo 

message: A small niggle ....wasn't the Toxic Graffiti zine spelt as I have rather than Graffity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.48.92 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a scan of the cover from the Southern website, which goes with the 'grafity' spelling  , however I don't think that Mike Diboll who produced the zine was too fussed about spelling, so it probably differed from issue to issue! quercus robur 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rival Tribal Rebel Revels flexi 

message: Well, the style recently seems to be to replace raw text headers on band infoboxes with stylised images of the band's logo/name as it appears on their official releases. Someone has just given Crass this treatment.
I think there's a problem in that they've chosen to use the entire crass logo, which is a big circle and just looks fucking wrong. I guess the thing to do would be to use the stencil text but not the whole logo. I'll get to that eventually, but if anyone else feels the need to comment, I thought I'd open it up. ~Switch t c g 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks cluttered and quite ugly personally. Its also not a particularly well executed rendition of the Dave King Crass logo quercus robur 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've replaed it with an image of just the stenilled text. It definitely suits better than the full logo. I'm in no way attahed to it though, so if anyone feels very strongly about it, they can remove the image. I never would have bothered if an image hadn't been plaed there to begin with. ~Switch t c g 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks much better quercus robur 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox header 

message: And now the style is NOT to allow band's logos in infobox headers, acording to the new WP rules in well hidden and ridiculously named pages like WP:FAIR and WP:MUSTARD. So I removed the usual CRASS stencil lettering and replaced it with a plain CRASS text. Which was then disapproved of too because "name should follow normal english capitalization rules, per WP:MOS". So now it's Crass. (I wish those in WP who spent their time nitpicking over such futilities would devote their energy to banning IP editing or something.)  Channel ®    10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox header 2008 

message: I can't help but feel that the last edit has left this article over- linked, including to completely irrelevant articles, such as an album by a heavy metal band. Howeevr some of the new links are valid, but I personally havn't got time to sift through right now, doeas anybody else fancy taking a look?? quercus robur 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-linked

message: I changed the word 'samples' in a faked conversation using edited SAMPLES of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans' voices to 'recordings'. As in a faked conversation using edited RECORDINGS of.... Tatchergate was a classic cut-the-tape job, and to me the word 'samples' suggests use of computers or digital samplers. Which was not the case. However, English is not my first language so if I'm wrong, feel free to change it back.  Channel ®    22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatchergate 

message: What song(s) did they mention LGBT issues? I'm not saying they didn't, but I've actually wondered if they ever took a stand on that and never actually found any lyrics that seemed to support it, but I haven't extensively examined all their lyrics either. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT rights? 

message: Guys, please, the band started in 1977. It's mentioned in Rimbaud's Shibboleth, in Berger's The Story Of Crass, and on a Crass Records album sleeve. Oh, and in a Crass CD booklet as well, I think. What more proof do you need? Please stop changing 77 into 76. It gets boring. And it's incorrect.  Channel ®    22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1976 vs 1977 

message: If the owners of the graffitied property considered it vandalism and removed it, then it's vandalism. Is there any evidence that anybody who had their property graffitied by Crass accepted their interpretation that it was a political statement, or did the owners all just consider it criminal damage? Did they suffer financial loss in doing so or did Crass offer to pay to clean it up in such caseS?
The Berlin Wall is a poor analogy here because it was in effect a prison wall and thus had a very clear role in state-sponsored repression. It's hard to say the same about the Bakerloo Line.  
If one were to turn up at Dial House and paint "Thatcher rules!" on it in white letters a foot high, would Crass consider that vandalism or a legitimate way of expressing a view they would probably disagree with?
Overall the whole article reads like it was written by someone who has read too many 1970s NME record reviews. Considering they were a commercially unsuccessful thrash punk band, do they merit an article of this length? Tirailleur (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too sure about that 'commercially unsuccessful' if I were you. And, according to its members, Crass made a point of not spraying on private property. So your Dial House comparison doesn't fly. Finally, the whole article has been written by dozens of people, not just one NME fan.  Channel ®    18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what sense were they commercially successful? Also the article says they graffitied advertising hoardings. Those are private property because the space is sublet to companies like JC Decaux who who then sell the space on. Tirailleur (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were commercially successful in the sense that they sold lots of records. Four of their albums went to number 1 on the UK Indie Chart, with Stations of the Crass spending 106 weeks in the chart, and ten of their singles were indie hits, ranging from number 1 (4 times) to 11 at the lowest. Christ The Album was also a UK top 30 hit.--Michig (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And as far as spraying on advertising boards goes, that's not what I mean with 'private property'. Private property is people's houses, garden walls, etc. If an advertising board is private property than so was the Berlin Wall (property of the German government, no?). One more thing: the length of an article has nothing to do with the amount (or lack) of commercial success the subject has (or had). If that was a rule than people like John Cage or Karlheinz Stockhausen would have to be summed up in one sentence.  Channel ®    19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  By the way, even if it is vandalism... then what? You want the band to go back now, 30 years later, to see if there's anything left to clear up or pay for? I don't get it. What's your point?  Channel ®    21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of wondering what the relevance between this discussion and this article was myself. Murderbike (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be better discussed at Talk:Graffiti. The distinction has been raised here before. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti = vandalism 

message: The articles for Andy and Joy are bare, to say the least. I've managed to add some stuff to Andy's, but there's not a lot TO add. Or if there is, I can't find it. The same goes for Joy's article. Any suggestions / help / referenced info available? Somebody? Somewhere?  Channel ®    23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is Andy seems to have made it pretty clear that he wants to draw a line under his career with Crass and pretty much seperate his current activities from his past. I don't think he'd thank anyone for drawing to much attention to what he's up to now, or during the intervening years, and anyone who personally knows him and contributes here is likely to want to respect his wishes, so its sort of Catch 22 91.107.61.27 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and fair enough. I don't think the N. A. Palmer article will ever be much more than it is now, unless Andy changes his mind. I can live with that. No need to put all kinds of stuff online he doesn't want there. At least the article is more than a stub. Joy's on the other hand...  Channel ®   14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Palmer / Joy de Vivre 

message: To User:Johan Rachmaninov: Before this erupts into a revert war, why do you keep removing the Anarcho punk genre from the article? If it's not a genre, then what is it? Anybody else has thoughts on this?  Channel ®   07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a genre, and I don't think it's valid to hold up the Anarcho punk wikipedia article as evidence that it isn't, if that was what was going on. That article needs a lot of work, but while covering the broader aspects of the anarcho-punk 'culture', does not demonstrate that it isn't a genre.--Michig (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: So you are saying that this category (and the 146 bands in it) is nonsense?  Channel ®   00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I see bands from at least 4 different punk sub genres in thereInhumer (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm not going to play your little game. I've noticed in your edit history that you like to do Genre "policing", even getting blocked for it, and I'm not going to be sucked into this pointless discussion. A genre/style is not easily defined as you well know (or should have realized by now). Just look at Death Metal, Black Metal, and Black Doom for example. To me it's all the same, but other people have very different opinions about it and consider them (sub)genres. Okay, fine with me. YOU may not believe Anarcho punk is a genre, but the 146 bands in that category apparently do. Most of them have infoboxes that say "Genre:Anarcho-punk" in their articles as well. If you want to get rid of all of them, good luck. That'll be an interesting discussion on the Talkpages. People might consider you a discipel of The Truth , though.  Channel ®   10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And which words would that be exactly?  Channel ®   00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: One, "putting words in someone's mouth" means writing or saying something in a way that suggests that the other person said it. I've never done anything of the kind. So don't you "dare" to accuse me of it. Two, don't tell me "all you have to do to end this fight". This is not a fight. This is a difference of opinion between you and the rest (it seems). Three: If you think the problem lies with the Anarcho punk article, then I suggest you work on that article instead of removing a link to it. Four: I didn't "inpile" you wanted to get rid of the category, I wondered if you wanted to get rid of every "Genre:Anarcho punk" line in these bands' infoboxes, like you did with Crass. Finally, the only one who needs to read WP:CIVIL appears to be you.  Channel ®   09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have to prove anything. You're the only one disputing that it's a genre (and you're also the first one ever, I think). Has it occured to you that 'genre' doesn't always has to relate to a strict musical description? Wikipedia uses a much wider definition of 'genre'. It can also relate to the subject. For example, 'Christmas music' is considered a genre (See Happy Xmas (War Is Over)) and so are 'protest songs' (see Casey Sheehan Didn't Die for Nothing), to name just two. But if you really want to take Anarcho punk out of all the 'genre' boxes, you'll have to go to the other band's Talk pages as well and see what the people there think. If the majority of Anarcho punk contributors agree that it shouldn't be called a genre, THEN things change. Until then nothing happens. That's how Wikipedia works. By consensus. If you want to try that, go ahead. See what the folks at Conflict, Icons of Filth, and The Apostles think, for a start. But I don't give you much of a chance to be honest.  Channel ®   23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Dude, you keep missing the point and I'm getting fed up with this discussion. I've been polite, I've given you plenty of examples, and now I'm finished. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing, I suggest you follow the links I provided and see what the folks think there about your views on genres. Oh, and last but not least, take a look at this.  Channel ®   08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Insult me again and you're in trouble. This is bordering on a personal attack and believe me, I won't have that. End of story.  Channel ®   01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far we have 3 votes that is a genre against one that says it isn't. Popular music genres are generally never supported by academic research and genres included in articles rely on consensus between editors. Please don't remove it again unless there is a consensus to do so. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchopunk is clearly a musical genre. Make that 4 votes 91.107.61.27 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: An infobox is a quick summing up of the main facts. Infoboxes don't contain refs or  tags because all the facts in them are already mentioned and reffed in the article. Removed Johan's tags from the infobox.  Channel ®   09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho punk is a genre. Or not? 

message: Ok, here's a reference for art punk as a genre for Crass. Can we give the  tags a rest now and move on to something more constructive please?--Michig (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art punk 

message: I don't really see how they could be classified as anything other than a staple of post-punk music. I tried to include this but got reverted on the basis that a band could not be post-punk "if it was only active during the 1st wave of punk". First of all, anything 1980-1984 (or post-1978, by some accounts) can't be said to have operated wholly during the first wave. Besides, their music is full of distortion, spoken word, sound collage, and diatribes against the "sell-outs" Joe Strummer and Johnny Rotten. If this isn't a musical and lyrical attempt to distance one's self from first wave punk, and indeed, expand it's horizons, then I don't really know what it is. I think this information is accurate and gives the reader a better idea of the band's musical focus. 24.3.15.249 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. My definition of 'post-punk' was bit too literal, I'm afraid. Apologies.    SIS  15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's cool. I the only reason I changed it was because I originally had adhered to that chronological basis for their genre, too, but then I saw that Joy Division formed in '76 and they're listed as post-punk right off the bat. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-punk?

message: Should we put up a section for this? Steve Ignorant has been in other bands like  Schwartzenagger (sic) and of course, Conflict (band). I'm sure there are others, too.24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not really associated, I think. It's all after Crass and Crass itself doesn't do anything anymore.    SIS  22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flux of Pink Indians don't do anything anything anymore either and they have stuff like Rubella Ballet listed as an associated act. The only they had in common was that they shared a drummer! I think key members being in bands with similar lyrical and musical content would count as "associated", especially if the aforementioned case does. P.S. I hope we actually agree on an aspect of this article one day! 24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flux and Rubella shared a member at the same time, that's my point. If Crass had associated acts they would be Poison Girls and Rubella Ballet, since they shared members, worked on each other's records, toured together, (more or less) all lived at Dial House, and all that during the same active period. Steve's work with Conflict is after Crass ceased to exist. I think that doesn't make Conflict a Crass associate act. Just my opinion. You did ask for opinions ;-)    SIS  13:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just being pedantic, but Poison Girls didn 't live at Dial House, but lived for a time down the road at Burleigh House, which has since been demolished to make way for the M25. But none the less still very much an 'associated act'. I'd also argue that Crass and Conflict WERE assocaited acts, they did loads of gigs together, Igs sang on 'To A nation Of Animal Lovers' whilst still in Crass, Conflict put out a single on Crass Records, etc, etc. The Rubella connection with Crass was far more tenuous however, not much beyond Igs and rachel being an 'item' for a while... 77.96.212.87 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good points. I'm not too educated on the Wikipedia standards for that stuff, because I've seen tons of articles where people are listed as "associated acts", even if they only collaborated on a single with someone! Oh well, this can be one of the articles that does it right! And yes, that was a good opinion. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if WP has a standard for "Associated Acts", to be honest...    SIS  21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of ridiculous now, id'nit? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Associated acts?

message: Problem with Crass was simply that the music wasn't really that good.
Same as the fiddle-de-dee of The Levellers, in the sense that its heart was probably in a good place, but its rock / groove / punk balls / soul was lost somewhere during the first joint. 
Essentially, although it's a good start, cool artwork is not enough.
Crass would probably put their lack of "hits" down to a government conspiracy, though.
Incidentally, isn't it funny how it's often the crusty and work-shy who are the loudest ones moaning about worker's rights?
Cheers!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.179.117 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And these personal views improve the article... eh... how exactly?  Channel R   20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Che Guevara Poster 

message: This would be a very minor edit, but I'm not sure that I understand either topic sufficiently to make it with confidence:  under History, would the "deliberately mixed messages" mentioned in the logo be considered (and linked to) culture jamming?
Just a thought.
Loveloveloved Crass back in the day!
A great day 2 all!
Luckydraws (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture Jamming? 

message: Crass formed in 1976 not 1977. Ask the members of Crass themselves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Derrick Robinson (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: I can't think of a single reason why this wouldn't be included in their genre section. They were one of the few bands that actively disavowed punk as an extant format. "Punk Is Dead", anyone? Not to mention, the idea of utilizing elements of punk, but rearranging/recombining them into something entirely "different" is one of the hallmarks of the post-punk movement, yes? Also, the band's sound (as guided by John Loder, who also worked with decidedly post-punk bands like Shellac and The Jesus And Mary Chain) was nigh-directly responsible for much of what became known as "post-punk". I dunno. Shoot this idea down. NeutronTaste (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. They were actually listed as post-punk but the genre was removed . I've restored it. Yintaɳ  23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-punk?

message: Hello, About a month ago I tried to add an external link to the Crass wiki page, which was removed twice by User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I replied to the user but have received no reply.
Could you therefore please consider the following link again for this page.
CRASS JOURNAL: The Last Act A record of letters, articles, postings and e-mails, February 2009 – September 2010 which details the disagreement between the members of Crass over the re-mastered and re-packaged reissues.
I tried to place this link below the External link 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues.'
The link which I tried to add was a collection of articles by Pete Wright the bass player of Crass and was directly linked to the 'disagreement over re-mastered reissues' within the band.
Could you therefore review this decision and perhaps include the link once again to the external links on the Crass page.
Thank you
81.179.240.237 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template., i.e., please establish a consensus with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The "Not done" response is from a template used to respond to semi-protected edit requests, so please don't take it personally. I'm sorry you didn't get a response from the user that removed your link; you're right that it's impossible to come to a consensus with someone who won't talk to you. That being said, per the external link guideline and what's already in the external link section on the article, I believe the link you want to add was removed because it doesn't belong. It's not all that relevant to the article and there are already too many external links in the section to begin with. As the guideline says, it's up to you as the person who wants to add the link to show why it's important to have it. If you can explain what is so important about these letters, it would go a long way to supporting the link's inclusion. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Done I cannot guarantee that it will stay in the article but I have added it in now. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 81.179.240.237, 3 June 2011 

message: I uploaded a new version of the logo and added it to the article. The previous one got deleted because it was uploaded to Commons. This one is on WP instead and now has (to the best of my knowledge) the proper Fair Use rationales and licenses. Shouldn't be a problem.  Yintan  12:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  That logo again 

message: How A Punk Band Fooled MI6, Scared Margaret Thatcher And Almost Caused A Diplomatic Incident
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-an-anarchist-punk-band-almost-caused-a-cold-war-diplomat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.92.166 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about crass, include it if you like