Talk:Glam punk

Stop deleting sourced info
Just because YOU do not like an article doesn't mean that you can delete it. ESPECIALLY when it is a sourced article.Crescentia 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the talk page edit history you would see the only sources that were deleted were because they had nothing to do with what was in the article. Hoponpop69 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources are getting deleted for valid reasons

 * 
 * 
 * 

Hoponpop69 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoponpop69 01:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoponpop69 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The numerous sources (17) are in following with WP:Verifiability, tough luck if you "don't like them". Troll this article again, vandalising huge sections and a move will be made to get you banned for WP:VANDAL, WP:BLANK, WP:TROLL. If you feel certain parts need an aditional source or a source at all, then a "fact" tag is to be placed next to it, however your blanking/vandalism of the article will be reverted. You could always go listen to your Green Day CDs while the big boys contrib to the articles. - TheOnly ones (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about actually taking a look at those sources, you'd realise most of them don't even mention the term glam punk. Irregardless I reverted back to your edit (with some small edits like deleting a source that was a geocities site) because I don't have time for this, and you will soon be blocked for incivility after I file a report.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * deleted a source that was just an author name and pg number... not formatted properly or titled. ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Glampunk.org has been deemed an invalid source
 Hoponpop69 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles

 * Why was my sourced inclusion of the Los Angeles-based, Max Lazer Band deleted from the article? They played in many clubs around Los Angeles in th late 1970s, and two of their songs are included on a compilation CD released on the Siamese Dogs label entitled, The Godfathers of LA Punk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Genre (Glam Punk)
Thats not really a genre, more to do with a look and Hanoi Rocks were a rock band essentially, while the Dolls are rock n roll/r'n'b, this article really shouldn't exist, just more usless characterisation for other established styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akadaks (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Going through the citations I cannot disagree with the above statement. This looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Can anyone actually produce something that actually outlines a genre of glam punk or should we be looking to a AfD?--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resolve these issues by cleaning up the article. I removed the SYNTH and OR and dubious sources, replacing these with a sourced version and took out the genre infobox as this does not appear to be a genre in a meaningful sense. Part of the problem is that glam punk is only used widely for one band, the Dolls. I found one other band from the 70s that were reliable sources indicated was part of the movement. That raises the issue of whether the issues could be handled at the band's page or perhaps on protopunk, but for now it probably has a better claim as an article.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted back to the cleaned up version. There really are no grounds for deleting information based on reliable sources, re-adding unsourced information or WP:OR and in making changes that go against the guidelines in the MOS. However, I am very open to discussion about the notability of parts of the article or particular sources here, should editors wish to open such discussions.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In case this thread has been missed, I am still waiting to open a dialogue. It is much better to discuss issues here than to do so through edit summaries.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 17:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for discussion about the recent deletions here.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Motley Crue?
surely their first album, even the wikipedia article says it incorporates glam and punk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.157.43 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Glam Punk is a Genre
Glam Punk is not just an "image", or a "retrospective label" it was an "underground" style in New York that mixed different past styles i.e. girl groups, garage rock, 50's rock n roll, pop, and rhythm and blues with glam rock, and protopunk. Rock and roll is considered a genre and it is basically a mix of rhythm and blues, and boogie woogie, so should we not consider rock and roll a genre just an "image" or "retrospective label"? Another example is the soul genre, its basically gospel style vocals, and rhythm and blues so would that not make it a genre also? A genre is music that distinguishes itself from other music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre), an example of this is the group T. Rex and the New York Dolls you will notice the differences I speak of by listening to any of their songs. So an infobox with its stylistic origins should be included in its wiki page, and this IS a sub-genre.

This sub-genre is not widely known, so it is limited with sources that are considered "liable" claiming that Glam Punk is a genre. There is only mostly written/typed interviews of the artists that have released published music of this genre, and were present at this music scene. The most "liable" is any media/book pertaining to the New York Dolls, since they have been called "glam punk" (notice it does not say glam rock and protopunk). Listening to any of the artists on the "List of Glam Punk bands" wiki page is sound evidence if doubting any band posted previously with a sourced article. So, the bands deleted from this article and the wiki band list associated with this should be included again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loza12345 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing these points here. Unfortunately, listening to bands and deciding that we think they belong to a genre is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Basically, we need reliable sources that indicate that have been seen as belonging to this genre. We can discuss whether sources are reliable and I have disputed some of these deletions on this talkpage, but basically if an editor to put them back, under WP:Burden it is incumbent on that editor to provide verifiable reliable sources. It may be that a genre is not widely known, but on Wikipedia that suggests that it is not notable and so perhaps we should think carefully about whether this should make a free standing article.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 12:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think an interview of the actual person of the genre, and sound evidence would be more reliable than a 3rd party publishing company publishing information about the genre. I would argue that wikipedia should change its view on what is reliable, and include sound evidence as a resource, since their are many flaws with this article, such as Hanoi Rocks being state as a metal band, since their sound is not metal if you take a listen. Also, I said using the music as sound evidence to reinforce the sources posted with the previous information about the groups in this genre not myself deciding what the genre of the groups are. I see that the information is not seen as reliable under wikipedia so like the Mexicans say "ni modo", this article is a lost cause until someone publishes a book/article on this genre that is deemed reliable from both ends.JL2 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Image
Still no response to the request for explanations of deletions, so I am opening this specific thread. There are no grounds for deleting the image of the New York Dolls from this article. The image is of the only band for which there are reliable sources in the article to demonstrate that they fit within the genre and the image was contemporary - illustrating their glam punk image. Arguing that they should not be here because the article is not about them is like arguing that Black Sabbath should not be in an article on Heavy Metal Music. The image clearly fulfils the criteria at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and, as those guidelines points out, "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal". I am open to suggestions of better images, but if such a suggestion cannot be made, the image that existed should be restored.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 19:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Sniper
Recently added sources for Sniper may be problematic. (Fast and Bulbous and New York Dolls Chronology). These seem to be self-published web sources. WP:USERGENERATED states that they are usually unacceptable as reliable sources. But, there is a clause that states that they "may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic ... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Do the generators of these websites fit this criteria, as that would be a good argument for their use?--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glam punk. 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/20101229203650/http://www.furious.com:80/PERFECT/davidjohansen.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/davidjohansen.html

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) 16:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Harlots of 42nd Street
Should we mention Harlots of 42nd Street and talk about this band as a major glam punk band if there's no documentation on it ? I find it strange. Elfast (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Templates
Besides punk rock, what other templates should glam punk go under? Shouldn't it also go under Subgenres and fusion genres rather than precursors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:C47D:5264:3626:2F26 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Proto-punk?
I think that a glam punk section on the proto-punk page may be better than an individual article. There isn’t a lot here and it’s unclear whether glam punk is a precursor to or fusion genre of punk rock. Dekai Averett (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Glam punk is both a precursor and fusion genre of punk rock. In the early-1970s, it was used to describe a glam rock and proto-punk fusion, and was used to describe the sound of New York Dolls, who actually pre-date the late-70s punk rock explosion. In the late-1970s, after the arrival of punk rock, it could be used to describe a glam rock and punk rock fusion, although, I am unsure of any bands that fall under this version of glam punk.
 * I definitely think this article should be expanded upon rather than redirected to proto-punk, noting the distinction between the two instances of glam punk. I tried to do this, albeit very poorly, but it was rightfully reverted as unsourced. I'm gonna see if I can't dig up some sources for the second instance of glam punk. Moline1 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My attempt to find sources for the later instance of glam punk turned up fruitless. Maybe someone else will have more success at finding sources that can be used here. Moline1 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt anyone used the term "glam punk" to describe the Dolls during their original existence, though I guess it is conceivable the phrase showed up someplace like Punk (magazine). The term is basically retroactively applied to the Dolls, and to a much lesser extent to some of their contemporaries and a subset of later bands influenced by them. I'm not 100% convinced this page should exist. (Note, this comment is not a call for a deletion nomination, just a note of uncertainty.) CAVincent (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)