Talk:Punk rock/Archive 7

Finland
There was an anonymous contribution today about Finland that got reverted for being uncited but is, to my knowledge, factually correct.
 * Punk in Finland Briard 1977, Pelle Miljoona, Eppu Normaali and Maukka Perusjätkä in 1979-1980. Most famous Finnish Most popular Hardcore punk bands from finland were Terveet Kädet, Kaaos, Riistetyt, Bastards, Rattus and Appendix. 90's punk bands Ne Luumäet and Klamydia and Apulanta.

Finland was an early adopter and has always been an enthusiastic supporter of punk rock. Terveet Kädet particularly influenced hardcore worldwide. Riistetyt represented Scandinavia played at the Olympic Auditorium international hardcore show during the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I note there is a category Category:Scandinavian hardcore punk groups. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We can certainly reintroduce some of these bands to the article--a couple of the formative bands in the Second wave/Rest of the world subsection and Terveet Kädet and perhaps Riistetyt in the hardcore subsection. We just need to identify appropriate sourcing.—DCGeist (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

hey im kayla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.188 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletionist arguments false and weak
Once again, an attempt has been made to delete the well-established image of the Ramones' ground-breaking debut album.

Once again, the false claim has been made that "no source...specifically discusses the cover." In fact, as has been pointed out before, two sources cited in the section specifically discuss the cover: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).

Once again, the false claim has been made that there is "no justification" for illustrating the album. In fact, as has been pointed out before, the album has been described as "set[ting] the blueprint for punk" (Erlewine, AMG) and as a "cultural watershed" (Isler and Robbins, Trouser Press)--and those are just the two sources quoted in the article. There are hundreds of similar judgments about the album and its significance to punk rock available.

Once again, it is falsely suggested that our image policy demands that the visual content of a fair-use image be specifically discussed in order to justify its inclusion (though, of course, in this case the visual content is); in fact, our policy demands that the item be of verifiable significance to the article topic and the subject of well-sourced critical commentary.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It cannot stay, as it is replaceable and replaced by free content. The lack of discussion of the image in reliable sources clearly shows that seeing the cover is not essential to understanding the subject. We can certainly use text to state the album's cultural importance, citing the sources you stated, the image does not add to that discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanna interject with a simple note - I couldn't care less about the use of the image in this case - my edits related only to the picture caption (scroll down), which in its original form was vastly misleading. Thanks. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (To DCGeist, above) I note you stated that your rationale was proper. However, you state only that the album cover illustrates "The Ramones" in the nonfree image rationale (aside from the standard no-commercial-harm etc.). I can understand you'd want to have the Ramones illustrated, they are an icon. I was able to find a free image of them performing (actually a couple) in the Ramones article. I hope that this can satisfy both of us&mdash;we can illustrate the band without needless use of nonfree content? (There are other free images if you don't like that one.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, first, I no longer know how to interpret your comments. Once again, the image of the Ramones' debut album cover is discussed in multiple reliable sources, which are cited in the section and which form the source of commentary within the section. This has been stated to you multiple times. The sources are clearly cited within the article and have been named for your personal benefit above. Here is the relevant article text: "The classic punk rock look among male U.S. musicians harkens back to the T-shirt, motorcycle jacket, and jeans ensemble favored by American greasers of the 1950s associated with the rockabilly scene and by British rockers of the 1960s. The cover of the Ramones 1976 debut album, featuring a shot of the band by Punk photographer Roberta Bayley, set forth the basic elements of a style that was soon widely emulated by rock musicians both punk and nonpunk." And once again, here are the cited sources: Bessman (1993) and Miles, Scott, and Morgan (2005).


 * As for your proposed substitution, the image is not of encyclopedic quality. The point of including an image of the Ramones is to (a) illustrate one of the most important and influential bands of punk rock and (b) to show the specifically influential look that they established (in significant part with the cover of their debut album, as the sources describe) and that is the topic of critical commentary in the section. The free image you have provided is unfortunately too dark and dense to be of illustrative value. If you have identified any free images of illustrative value, why not post them here on the Talk page and we can consider them—DCGeist (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but a free image need not be very good to replace a nonfree. It need only be on-topic and free. We don't use nonfree where free is available, even if quality is better. There is another free image in the Ramones article, perhaps you'd like that one better? There may also be more on Commons, I could have a look if you'd prefer a different one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (To continue from above) There are actually a good number of them, now that I look. Any preferences? I kind of like the full band one myself, but you seemed to think it was too dark. I could certainly see about lightening it up some. There are some clearer face shots as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the cited source, a single sentence about the cover is not significant commentary, certainly not enough to justify inclusion in the face of free replacements being available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're voicing your personal opinion as if it is policy. It is not. The item in question (the Ramones' debut album) is significant, as many reliable sources indicate. The visual content of its cover is significant, as multiple reliable sources indicate. No free image is available that will represent the significant item and/or its significant cover. The fair use image is thus not "replaceable." That's our policy. You clearly have a problem with our policy, so try to get it changed.


 * Your comments about "cited source" and "single sentence" are very revealing. Seraphimblade, how many times do you need to be told? There are cited sources on the importance of the image.


 * Again, I'm happy to participate in considering the inclusion of any free images that are of encyclopedic quality and have illustrative value. I "like" the live band shot as a photo too, but it has virtually no illustrative value in the context of this article. I am afraid that the "face shots" you are suggesting will also fall well short in the illustrative value department for different reasons, but by all means, let's take a look at them.—DCGeist (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It illustrates the Ramones. We're discussing the Ramones. (In fact, it's from near the exact same time period.) How could that fail to have such value? The sources are discussing, mainly, the appearance of the band, and the shot of the band certainly serves to illustrate that. I could see if some better gamma correction could be done to it, but it certainly serves to illustrate what the sources above are discussing. (Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.) Regarding policy, while you may have been right a year ago, see the policy on replaceability from our own policy: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)" In this case, free image plus text can convey information regarding the iconic look. The nonfree image is replaceable. As to the basis for this, the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution mandates it, see requirement #3: "Such EDPs must be minimal....Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Now we've got free content to replace the nonfree, so the nonfree must go. The policy was changed the moment WMF made that resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you include a very revealing parenthetical in your comment: "(Mentioning the album cover in passing is not coverage of it, it's a name-drop. Unless a source covered the image, went into depth about it, rather than just mentioning it, we're not talking about significant commentary.)" You imply that is not the case here. But you have clearly not taken the least effort to actually familiarize yourself with the cited sources. Bessman, for instance, mentions the cover photograph at two entirely different junctures in his book. The primary discussion of it runs to over six paragraphs.

When addressing matters of "significance," when identifying what constitutes "the same encyclopedic purpose," it really is vital to be familiar with the subject matter under discussion and the relevant literature. Yes, we are all aware (I hope) of the shift in general philosophy on the use of free and nonfree images; but the specific appropriate application of that philosophy often requires a certain knowledge of a topic or the willingness to spend the time and effort learning about it.—DCGeist (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish I had that source available, unfortunately I do not. What you cited earlier was a sentence regarding the cover. I wouldn't expect a few paragraphs on the image to change anything significantly, but I'll see if I can locate the source or at least that part of it then. The fact remains, if the image were being discussed in context of the "punk rock look", or an example of it, we could use any picture which illustrates the "punk rock look" to replace it. Let me see if I can locate that source, and hopefully a satisfactory image can be found. In the meantime, however, the image is still replaceable by free content, and still must go. That's not my choice to make, nor yours. WMF has mandated that this be done without exception when the image is replaceable, and especially when it is indeed replaced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, it would help if you would not only educate yourself on the topic, but actually read the article you want to take a whack at. What I "cited earlier" was the text of this very Wikipedia article under discussion.


 * You have still made no case that the image is replaceable. It illustrates a very significant item, whose significance is confirmed by multiple sources. Do you have a free image that illustrates this very significant item? In addition, the visual content of the image itself has specific historical significance, as confirmed by multiple sources. It is thus per se nonreplaceable. No free image you might come up with will have the same historical significance (i.e., serve "the same encyclopedic purpose"). I will be interested to see if you come up with anything that has verifiable historical significance at all.—DCGeist (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are using the wrong standard. A free image need not be as good as a nonfree one, not as nice, not any such. It need be adequate, and that is all. A free image with text is adequate to illustrate the point. Maybe not as pretty, maybe not as nice, but none of those are relevant. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, maybe a third voice will help to break this deadlock. The Ramones are a seminal group; nobody doubts that. And their look and style set the tone for decades. And - this part breaks my heart - Wikipedia's fair use standards are too strict to have their album cover here. Or any other copyrighted album cover. Gnash your teeth along with me. Fair use only applies to the article about that album. Not the band, not the artists, and not the genre. Yeah, it sucks. That's standard site practice. And I wish a lot of fair use images could be used more widely. Gotta be consistent, though. Dangit. Durova Charge! 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to believe that FU allows the use of the album images here. They are relevant to punk rock and its development. If the album is discussed and referenced. Use of the image should be allowed. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're actually correct&mdash;insofar as your analysis goes. United States fair use law would pretty unambiguously allow us to use the image, and it's relevant to punk rock. So, yes, it's fair use, and it's relevant. What prohibits its use is the nonfree content policy, and the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution upon which that policy is based, both of which require that nonfree images be removed if a free image can be found or created to serve the purpose. In this case, we have plenty of free illustrations of the Ramones. They need not be as good, only adequate. And they are. Therefore, we must get rid of the nonfree image and replace it with a free one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I agree: replace the album cover with a free image. The Ramones played small venues for over 20 years so there shouldn't be a problem getting material shot near the stage.  Thank you for the correction; I've seen closer interpretations of fair use than what you argue here.  Durova Charge! 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But Seraphimbalde has rather baldly misrepresented the case here. (Misrepresented it in good faith, to be sure!) The image is not there simply to represent the Ramones, which, of course, other images could satisfactorily do. It is there, per policy, (a) to illustrate their debut album, widely regarded as one of the most important and influential recordings in punk rock history, often as the most important and influential such recording, as attested to by our cited sources and many others, and (b) for the specific image itself which is of particular historic significance, as discussed in the article and as attested to by our cited sources. If the image was there solely to provide "an" image of the Ramones, it would certainly be replaceable by a free image. But it serves an encyclopedic purpose that goes well beyond that, a purpose that cannot be approached by a free image.—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about an article content request for comments and open this for broader input? (It's late and I wanna be sedated.) ;) Durova Charge! 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection there. To DCGeist, why can we not represent the album's importance using text? I'm certainly not disputing its significance, nor the fact that such is sourceable, as clearly both are true. What I do dispute is that this point cannot be adequately illustrated using text with a free image, describing the album's significance while depicting the band in that time frame. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa & MI and Captain Beefheart
The article completely missed Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Captain Beefheart. Freak Out! (1966), Absolutely Free (1967), and Safe as Milk (1967) are such influential "protopunk" albums. They were protopunk 2-3 years before the MC5 album Kick Out the Jams. I think that they must be included in the Protopunk section or somewhere else in the article. —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember, we have an entire article on protopunk. Given the length of the present article, I think we really have to reserve discussion of those predecessors (and the several others that also might be mentioned) for that more specific article. The fact is, Zappa and Beefheart are simply not considered in the literature (which includes the testament of the early punk musicians) as nearly influential as were the MC5 and the Stooges (or, for that matter, the Kinks and the Who).—DCGeist (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats happened to this page?
I'm sure when I read it a few months back it was for informative. Has someone sabotaged it?

Why does it not emphasize more on the start of the punk rock being the three cord punk groups influenced by the Kinks song "You really got me going" as this is what the music critics first referred to as "Punk Rock". Its not right to change history just because some people caught onto the scene years later and want to hold onto their little piece of history as the legit thing. The word Punk means "Amateur" or "worthless" from the original old meaning of the word being 'Rotten wood used as tinder'. The original punk bands were inexperience amateur bands just making songs out of a few cords. This developed the later publicized scene that McLaren learned from New York and took to the world.

Just because of some pro-Sex Pistol image lead Brits who loved their era so much they won't accept anything else as being Punk, we should still accept the original invented use of the word “Punk Rock” and not change try changing history by inventing the term “Garage Rock”. McLaren stolen image and music style became a major visual aspect of punk, but this is not what Punk Rock is. Punk Rock is a far bigger movement first influenced by the Kinks. The origin punk image grew from the Mod scene only with a rebellious nature influenced by the mood of youth growing in that era that turned it into uniqueness or being original with what you had.

Also what about "Positive-Punk" and the popier "Dark-Wave" which is a large branch of the punk rock image (better known as "Goth") surely this should get more credit as much of punk movement went this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.227.166 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

John Felice
A proposed deletion template has been added (not by me) to the article John Felice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated ...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Glitter rock
Worth mentioning the influence of David Bowie and Lou Reed/Velvet Underground in the pre-history section? Red Gown (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Velvet Underground's importance is addressed in the pre-history section. They are mentioned again later in the article, as is Lou Reed specifically. I don't believe David Bowie is regarded as a sufficiently influential or characteristic progenitor of punk to warrant discussion in this overview article, but he could certainly be mentioned in the more detailed protopunk article.—DCGeist (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Must have missed the VU mention. Silly me. I think David Bowie *could* be worked in. He had a huge influence on punk as far as I can tell (Slaughter and the Dogs and Wayne County come to mind. The original Sex Pistols also spent a lot of time listening to him - even allegedly stole his PA.) Maybe he's considered more of a catalyist, however. But yes, the Ziggy album's influence on the Stooges definetly needs a nod in the protopunk article. Red Gown (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I've just been reading Dave Laing's excellent One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock, and he makes a strong case for the connection between Bowie and punk. Perhaps most pertinently to this overview article, he writes, "David Bowie's use of artifice influenced the formation of punk rock through his version of the visual excess and outrage he shared with the New York Dolls and Alice Cooper." And--you'll not be surprised--he devotes much specific attention to the Ziggy persona and album. I'm convinced. A sentence on Bowie here (and more in the protopunk article) would be worthwhile. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you put it in, but the mention was so jarring that I came here to argue it should be removed. "Artifice and exaggeration" weren't invented by Bowie - could you rewrite the segment to state directly that Bowie actually influenced the Sex Pistols, and exactly how?  DCGeist, I found that quote pretty vague.  Tempshill (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the emo section that need to be fixed IMMEDIATELY
I didn't want to edit this because i wasn't quite sure what to do regarding someone elses comment, so i'll just tell you what needs to be fixed. In the last sentence it says emo bands such as Panic at the Disco and Fall Out Boy don't even qualify as punk: "PATD and FOB are not emo.  FOB has too much pop and little screaming in anything but a couple of songs.  PATD i think is actually supposed to be like pop-rock, and is sort of the exact opposite of what emo is supposed to be.  That sentence needs to be removed or whoever wrote this article will look like an idiot (no offense, but that's what will happen).==Darth 'ric (Mar. 25)==  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.115.147 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews to interview Richard Hell
Wikinews is to interview Richard Hell of Richard Hell & The Voidoids, Television (band) and Dim Stars about his life, music, career and future. If you have a serious question for Hell, please leave it on my talk page under the title "Richard Hell interview". This message will be struck out once I am no longer accepting questions. -- David  Shankbone  00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the article (repost and update)
Well, we currently have five fair use images and 14 music samples on the page. We also still have four instances of the word "seminal", none of which appears in the sources (where there are any). One of them even forms part of this sentence fragment: "...is seen by many as the seminal album in the field." Many? Who? Not the reference provided at any rate. At present, the article is in breach of (at least):
 * 1) Non-free content; "3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
 * 2) Avoid peacock terms; "Words and phrases to watch for... "seminal""
 * 3) Avoid weasel words; "So, some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world - Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is some? Consider the radically different answers these questions might have and what the average reader would make of them, and you might understand just how fundamentally lacking is a statement that uses the "what-some-people-say" qualification."
 * 4) Manual_of_Style; "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended"
 * 5) Manual_of_Style; "Captions should be succinct; more information on the file can be included in the image or media description page, or in the main text."

In the ten days since I raised these concerns in talk, tried to improve the article, and was reverted, I see little progress in the article. I have, on the other hand received some modest support for the points I made. Where do you suggest we go now? Is someone else willing to edit the article to bring it more into line with our guidelines? If I make another attempt to do so, will I be instantly reverted again? Would it be best to get other people involved, perhaps via a Featured article review? I await your suggestions. --John 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Update (April 2008); we still have five fair use images, but we now have 20 fair use music samples. This marks a further decline in compliance with our policies.


 * Now down to 2 seminals; still two too many though.


 * "Hardcore, appealing to a younger, more suburban audience, was perceived by some as anti-intellectual, overly violent, and musically limited." Some? Who? I appreciate the effort that has gone into referencing some of these claims, but it is still not good style.


 * Image formatting and captioning; same concerns exist as six months ago.


 * The "Pre-history" section is very Americocentric. For example, we currently have "In the early and mid-1960s, garage rock bands that would come to be recognized as punk rock's progenitors began springing up in many different locations around North America", followed by a discussion of bands including The Kinks and The Who. Who were not form North America at all.


 * New concerns: the overall writing style; we have 24 instances of the word "would", all of them inappropriate. Example: "...garage rock bands that would come to be recognized..." would be better as "...garage rock bands that (or which) came to be recognized.."


 * So, given the lack of overall progress in the last six months, I propose an improvement drive. I recognise this will require others' input and at this point it is just a choice between a FAR and some other form of input. What we cannot have is this article continuing to make a mockery of our FA standards by displaying the little star long term with all these unaddressed problems in it. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some initial thoughts. This go-round, can we look forward to you again telling those who disagree with your assessment of the article and your interpretation of policy that their views "count relatively little"? Can we look forward to you again baselessly trying to dismiss those who disagree you with as collectively ill-informed "friends"? Can we look forward to you again describing media choices as "arbitrary" and "weird" based on your evident lack of familiarity with the topic area under discussion and specifically with most of the literature in the field? Can we look forward to you again policing MoS as if it is, you know, policy to be post facto imposed on an article, rather than a guideline to be referenced by those actively engaged in maintaining and improving it? Can we look forward to more hilarity like the time you pondered the "Anarchy in the U.K." poster and proclaimed in all seriousness, "If it is merely an image of safety pins we need, a free one could I am sure easily be prepared"? Can we look forward, in other words, to you, Johnny Boy?—DCGeist (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you're off to a grand start with your inaccurate and, frankly, incoherent assessment of the Punk rock section. Way to go, Jellybean.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Should have been clearer, sorry. When I said "Any thoughts?" I meant "Any constructive suggestions as to how these deficiencies which have lain unaddressed now for six months can be remedied?" --John (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part, you have not identified objective deficiencies, just things that happen not to accord with your personal opinion of what the article should look like. The fact that you have completely misread the Pre-history section, missing the transition that takes place via the reference to the British Invasion, means—to use your own standards and language—that your opinion is of no particular consequence here. However, you have managed to identify a minor tic in the writing style—the overuse of "would"—that is easily addressed. Thanks for dropping in, boychick. (Simmer down, JJ, that's a Yiddish term of endearment.)—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * John was, no surprise, incorrect when he declared that all 24 uses of "would" were inappropriate. It is perfectly appropriate when describing a sequence of past events to use, for example, the construction "X would become Y" rather than "X became Y." However, the "would" construction in such phrases is more effective when it is reserved for...to get real technical...the remote future-in-past tense, where it contextually connotes a relatively larger gap of time than that connoted by the simpler verb construction (in this way "X would become Y" operates expressively like "X later became Y").


 * The "would" construction is also useful for euphony in certain cases. For example, it is used in the passage "coming even closer to the sound that would soon be called 'punk'" rather than the less remote future-in-the-past construction "was soon to be called 'punk'" (the simple past construction, "was soon called 'punk,'" is clearly inappropriate here—the sense demands future-in-the-past). "Would" is employed here to avoid using the word "was," which appears immediately before the quoted passage, twice in the same sentence. The "remote" connotation of "would" is here ameliorated by "soon." In any event, John was right to observe that the "would" construction was overused. The 24 instances of "would" in nonquoted text have been reduced to 10.—DCGeist (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a lot of fair use music samples, but I think that is simply inevitable. There is no chance of getting the music samples licensed, all of them seem germane (we might be able to pare it down a little, but not much) and there is certainly no other content that can substitute for music samples in an article about music. The only sense in which it "weakens" the article is that it is not as good in terms of the one goal of "free content", but it certainly is a positive in terms of virtually all other goals. This is a case where the goals are simply in conflict with one another. It seems to me that the contributors to this article have made a reasonable choice in this respect. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the fair use images seem close to inevitable. It would be rather odd to do an article about punk rock that did not show a single example of a record jacket or poster, and I don't think any of the historically major acts (or their managers or labels) are about to release anything under GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the fair use music samples are a lot more defensible than the images. On a music article it makes sense to have samples of the music that the article is about, though 20 are too many. The images have been removed a number of times as they are being used decoratively and have been chosen arbitrarily (ie not by any sort of consensus-building exercise). If we were to have fair use images at all (I have argued that we do not need any and that free images could do the job), at the very least there should be a discussion about which ones to use and how many we absolutely need to have. Again, five fair use images is too many. Our policies are being broken here as long as we leave the article like this. Maybe we could even choose the most important two of the five we have meantime. Two would be better than five, even if my own preference would be zero. --John (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go again, John. The article passed FAR with between seven and eight fair use images (I'm not certain of the status of one that has been removed from our database). Are you making a mockery of our FAR process? Tut, tut. It would appear that five fair use images is too few, if our community's views are to be respected. In addition, there are now inline citations for the commentary on each and every fair use image and text clearly indicating their significance. As usual, you abuse the word "decoratively," which means purely ornamental; like it or not, the fair use images convey visual information directly relevant to the topic of this article. You also, as usual, misrepresent the history of the discussion, dismissing the perspectives of editors such as Wwwhatsup and SwitChar who didn't toe your line concerning these images and their value. You have drawn—from nowhere but your cute widdle belly button, as usual—the arbitrary number of two fair use images. Great. Please find two appropriate fair use images to add to the article so we can restore it to the quality it had at FAR. Thanks, boychick.—DCGeist (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
"...between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash were recognized..." It seems odd to me to mention Australia, but not mention an Australian band here. There's an implied parallelism between the two lists of three that doesn't quite work here. Maybe "...between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, the Sex Pistols and The Clash, and The Saints were recognized..."?


 * This is something I've wondered about for a long while. You have the honor of being the first to raise it publicly. You're unquestionably right. There's an implied parallelism that is not fulfilled. Your suggestion is a completely worthy solution to that problem. The counterargument is that both from the global perspective and the (overlapping) historical perspective, the three aforementioned bands are regarded as far more important. Will other readers find it inappropriate to group The Saints with them in the lead paragraph? Let's see if anyone else weighs in on this and how they view it.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is another problem that the article currently has; as well as over-emphasising North American groups' contributions to the genre, it suffers (like a lot of these music genre articles) from trying to include every country in the world regardless of actual impact. "Meanwhile, in Antarctica, Amundsen and the Penguins were producing their first seminal album. Even tiny Liechtenstein contributed, with Used Tractor pioneering proto-post-punk in a manner that many journalists said was "ass-kicking"... Trouble is, when you click on the links, you find that the band is barely even notable enough to have an article, let alone to be worth mentioning in an overview article like this. They have presumably been added in a laudable attempt to present a world view. We need to tell it like it is here though, and we may need to accept that, significant though Australia's contributions were, The Saints do not rank with The Clash or the Sex Pistols. Not for the lead I think, and we should delistify the bits of the article which suffer from this fault. --John (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But remember, as our lede states, "For the most part, punk took root in local scenes that tended to reject association with the mainstream." We need to strike the appropriate balance: naturally weighted toward the most celebrated acts and events, while still efficiently surveying the grassroots scenes that are also definitive of punk. I believe the article currently does strike the right balance. As for judging the "notability" of bands on the basis of whether they currently have Wikipedia articles or substantial Wikipedia articles, that betrays a misunderstanding of our project. It's a work in progress. Many topics of varying import in every field have for years had no specific Wikipedia coverage, or just stubs, or only poor articles. Efficiently referencing bands in an overview article such as this is one way of inspiring their coverage deeper down in the encyclopedia, as it were. There are several bands mentioned in the article that were once redlinked that are now covered in articles of some substance.—DCGeist (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

John, are you saying that the mention of the Ramones in this context over-emphasizes the American contribution, or are you just objecting to the Australian part? I was bouncing back & forth between NYC & London in the relevant period, and it seems to me that insofar as the London punks of that era respected anything (which wasn't a whole lot), they respected the Ramones. As for the Saints: the other way to go is to leave Australia out of the lede. But mentioning them with no example seems pointless, and if we are mentioning it, then as far as I know there isn't much of a controversy about the Saints being most important early punk band. - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DC, I am delighted to be able to agree with you philosophically here, that the grassroots aspect of punk was and is part of its appeal. However I am labouring under no illusions about the differences between a band which possesses notability, and one which has a decent Wikipedia article (actually, distressingly few do). It's a tricky one but I don't, naturally agree with you that the article currently has the balance right. I will think about it some more and I thank you for opening up this line of reasoning.


 * Jmabel, my personal opinion would be that mentioning the Ramones in the lede over-emphasises the American contribution to punk; as a die-hard Clash, Pistols, Damned and Buzzcocks man, to me the Ramones and the Dead Kennedys were respected contributors but hardly "seminal"; but I also accept that in a world project like this, we are doomed to accept an Americo-centric view of punk as this is the consensus of the project. Whether including minor bands from all over the world is a good strategy to address that I doubt, as I said above. All that said, speaking as an internationalist Wikipedian, I think Australian definitely shouldn't be in the lede. --John (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was living in England at the time, and attended the July 4 1976 Ramones show, just missing the Patti Smith one week before, I don't think there's any doubt as to their influence on the formative UK scene. I agree with John - Australia doesn't belong in the lede. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Several important points have been made. Punk rock did emerge independently during the mid-1970s in Australia, and it is simply historically inaccurate to state that it developed in the US and the UK without mentioning Oz as well. There is a failed parralelism that should be improved. Australia was not as important as the US and the UK and there's no way the Saints should be named alongside the Ramones, SPs, and Clash. Here's an edit that addresses all that, while also letting readers know exactly where the heart of the action was. Replace


 * Preceded by a variety of protopunk music of the 1960s and early 1970s, punk rock developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where groups such as the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and The Clash were recognized as the vanguard of a new musical movement.


 * with


 * Preceded by a variety of protopunk music of the 1960s and early 1970s, punk rock developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Groups such as the Ramones, in New York City, and the Sex Pistols and The Clash, in London, were recognized as the vanguard of a new musical movement.


 * (If preferred: Groups such as New York City's Ramones and London's Sex Pistols and the Clash were recognized...)DocKino (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else who's stated The Saints don't belong to be mentioned alongside the other bands. I'd even argue Australia doesn't deserve mention in the lead, as the movement was so minimal compared to the other two, though this might require some rewording of the intro.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No one's raised an objection to my proposed edit, so I'll give it a shot. Basically


 * We lose no information
 * We gain some good information, without excess verbiage
 * We solve the style problem Jmabel (I believe) pointed out
 * In addition, while I support keeping the mention of Australia, for those opposed, this edit does further deemphasize Oz, by making very clear that the most important groups were in the US and UK. DocKino (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the edit's an improvement. I don't think there's any doubt that The Saints "I'm Stranded" - released in September 76 - and played by John Peel to the aspiring UK punks - wasn't an early and significant musical statement, and that it was borne out of a vibrant local scene. Without doubt it was a musical milestone. But one that was rapidly passed the moment The Damned put out "New Rose", and by the time the album came out, post-Clash, in Feb 77 the band just wasn't that significant, or The Australian scene at all. As the article reads at present the inclusion of Australia in the lede is acceptable. If the article didn't have such detail on the Australian scene it wouldn't make sense. To me, for instance, I would consider the French to be as, if not more, important to the development of punk - particularly Marc Zermati with his Mont De Marsan Fests in 1976 & 1977; the release of Metallic KO; the trafficking in 45's with the US and the UK. But that doesn't get a whole section and a mention in the lede. When it comes to 'recognition' what really made it happen was not just the music & style but it's exposure via fanzines, the music weeklies and tabloids in the UK, and Punk press in the USA such as Punk in NYC, Slash in LA, Search & Destroy in SF etc. They set the template for the Punk meme to spread.  They don't get much of a mention either. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil
Someone recently added a few sentences about Brazil. It may or may not be accurate; it is entirely uncited and terribly written. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's brought the section "Rest of the world" up to 18 redlinks. Style-wise, it is no worse than the rest of the section; it is a list of non-notable bands and is what I was parodying above with the punk bands form Greenland and Liechtenstein. It should go, obviously, the whole thing. --John (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Obviously" the section is informative, properly cited, and should stay. Let's get cracking on writing articles for those redlinked bands, people! The rep of Wikipedia's at stake!!—DCGeist (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More seriously, Aborto Elétrico does seem significant to warrant mention, and there's certainly sourcing available describing their import.—DCGeist (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go if it has reference to non-notable bands. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot more info out there about scenes in other parts of the world that we should be looking to accommodate. The best way could be through sub-pages. Punk in Brazil etc. That would take the pressure off here. It's a shame to dump good info that could built on. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that there is List of Brazilian punk and hardcore groups, which already has several paragraphs of text--more in fact than many articles that aren't designated as "lists." Should it perhaps be renamed and expanded?—DocKino (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Max Lazer Band
Why was my inclusion of the Max Lazer Band deleted? Was the author of this article even living in LA during the late 1970's? If so, why is he not aware of Max Lazer or The Cats and The Heaters for that matter?They were constantly playing gigs on the Strip.I remember because I WAS THERE.jeanne (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, information doesn't go into our articles just because you remember it and were there. We need to cite a verifiable source. Take a look at the relevant sentence again. It discusses the L.A. scene in 1977. All of the bands named were playing in the city that year, per the source cited at the end of the sentence: Mark Spitz and Brendan Mullen, We Got the Neutron Bomb: The Untold Story of L.A. Punk (Three Rivers Press, 2001). The Max Lazer Band are not mentioned in the book at all, let alone as playing in 1977, which is the time covered in this section of the article. I'm deleting them again, unless you can find a published source or a high-quality Internet source (not an amateur site or a blog) establishing that the band did play in L.A. in 1977. I don't believe they did. Meanwhile, please familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policy on verifiability: Verifiability.—DCGeist (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam and punk rock?
I think the name of band Pearl Jam should be removed from this page. Although they gained commercial succes in the slipstream of punk-influenced Nirvana, and subsequently were added to the non-genre 'grunge' (a mash-up of styles played by Seattle bases bands that was only invented to sell these bands' music), they have absolutely nothing to do with punk in any way. Pearl Jam is just an early nineties version of classic rock, representing much of what punk rock was rebelling against. I didn't remove it myself, just to wait and see if people agree. I also think that people who don't agree should come with sources, which I highly doubt their existance.82.114.160.33 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.249.164 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Billy Joel and Simon & Garfunkel
Quote:

John Holmstrom, founding editor of Punk magazine, recalls feeling "punk rock had to come along because the rock scene had become so tame that [acts] like Billy Joel and Simon and Garfunkel were being called rock and roll, when to me and other fans, rock and roll meant this wild and rebellious music."

Isn't this an odd statement? Simon & Garfunkel broke up in 1970, while Billy Joel made his album debut in 1971, and only achieved mainstream success in 1973. 130.238.66.35 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No: it's a quotation, and he's just trying to talk about the type of music it contrasted to. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's a quotation. I just don't think it works well in this context. When one thinks of the "bombast and sentimentality of early 1970s rock," is really Simon & Garfunkel the first thing that comes to mind? Aren't they more associated in people's minds with the 1960's? Furthermore, who would ever call them "rock and roll"? Folk-rock, maybe, but "rock and roll"? I have a hard time believing that anyone ever called them that. In addition, the previous quotation talks about endless solos going nowhere, which obviously does not apply to either Simon & Garfunkel or Billy Joel. So, I guess the whole section is pretty vague when it comes to what punk reacted against. As it stands now, it seems that their target was this voluminous thing "1970's rock," that apparently encompasses everything from folk music to Hendrix imitators. That's pretty non-specfic for a philosophy, I think. 130.238.66.35 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right that S&G are not emblematic of '70s rock. It would be great if we could find a citable quotation that mentioned the likes of ELO, Yes, Foreigner, Journey, Boston, and/or Kansas instead. S&G as a duo are certainly 1960s (although Paul Simon as a solo act was still enormous in the era when punk first burst out). A for Billy Joel, I suppose I'm glad to see any swipe at him that isn't libelous, but that's me. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

grunge
is grunge not a fusion or sub genre with punk being grunge is a mixture of heavy metal and punk?--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock, which has a section in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term punk
I just wanted to say: the section on the origin of the term punk has gotten really good: succinct and probably close to definitive. Great work, everyone. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Blank Generation"
'Richard Hell wrote "Blank Generation", which would become the scene's emblematic anthem of escape.' How is it an "anthem of escape"? Can we either kill of clarify "of escape"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Clause cut.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Radiators From Space
Do The Radiators From Space really merit a mention, or was this just an effort to name something from the Republic of Ireland for that era? (We all have our pets - I loved Big in Japan at the time, and still do - but the question is, does it tell the readers anything they are likely to want to know?) - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall adding them—yes, in the spirit of our global perspective, simply to identify the first punk band of any note from the Republic of Ireland.—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maximum Rock'n'Roll
Does Maximum Rock'n'Roll perhaps deserve a mention beyond the one place it is cited as a source? Pretty damned influential on the U.S. DIY scene's ongoing self-definition, especially in the late 1980s / early 1990s. - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. The only question is--given the structure of the article--where? The lead text of Punk transforms? The Hardcore subsection? The Alternative rock subsection? The punk revival? None of them is quite exactly right. But wherever you think it works best, go for it.—DCGeist (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular place to put it, but would welcome suggestions. There may be a few other other zines that merit mention. Maybe Flipside? Any other suggestions? I think we'd want to stick to things that were specific to punk (or punk/DIY) and preferably ones that carried some reasonably serious writing about more than merely a local scene. - Jmabel | Talk 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultravox/New Romantics
I've substituted Ultravox for Duran Duran in the New Wave part of the article. While Duran Duran was certainly the most popular band associated with the New Romantic label, their sound wasn't really the most typical of it. Ultravox not only defined the sound, but they're a better fit here historically, emerging during the original punk period.DocKino (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

History
The history section is pretty awful. Lester Banks first used the term "Punk" in 1971 to describe the enthusiastic underground scene in New York that was around in the sixties. This music came from the beatniks of the 50s and the folk counter culture of the 60s and was the real punk rock. It was started by bands like "The Fugs". For some reason this article only describes Punk after it went mainstream in the 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Punk rock in Spain
I've created a new article under this title from the way-too-large section on Spain that had been recently added here. I'll see about condensing (or really researching) the Spanish info, so it would be compatible in length and style with the existing international section.DocKino (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-establishment"
Seeing as this article includes things like new-wave as Punk Rock, I'm not sure that's quite an appropriate label. Sure, a lot of punk is, but declaring the whole thing to be anti-establishment is kinda iffy. Zazaban (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The characterization seems to have had general support. By the way, the article does not describe New Wave "as" punk rock. It's important to describe the historical connections between the two fields and particularly the links between the terms themselves, but I think it's made pretty clear that what is now generally referred to as New Wave is not punk rock. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By new wave I mean things like The Police and Blondie. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Ramones? Misfits? The Cramps? X? The Gun Club? 45 Grave? Husker Du? The Damned? Descendants? How were these bands "anti-establishment" when they weren't even really political? What about all the psychobilly-punk? Or garage punk? Or those punk bands that write about apolitical topics? Or all that shitty conservative/patriotic punk? That's pro-establishment. Just trying to be accurate. The term only describes certain punk rock bands, not all of them. It should be removed. Tim010987 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a very strong case. Anyone here disagree?DocKino (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. Let's give it a week and if nobody makes a good counter-argument we'll change it. Zazaban (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

23 minutes
That's how long this page was blank for. This in rather shocking, on large pages like this vandalism is usually reverted in under 3 or 4 minutes. What's more is that somebody actually reverted something DURING this time but failed to notice the article was missing. We can do better than this. Zazaban (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fat Lip.ogg
The image Image:Fat Lip.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Ramones album cover.jpg
 * Image:Pay to Cum.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This has now been addressed. Thank you, bot.DocKino (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Garage punk
Major missing section.... Tim010987 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag
Mufka recently placed a "very long" tag at the top of the article. Though the article is indeed lengthy, I find it easy to read and well-organized so that visitors to it who don't care to read the whole thing can choose to concentrate on their particular area of interest, be it geographical, temporal, or conceptual. I don't really see any plausible new subarticles inside here. In short, the article may be long, but it's hardly too long.DocKino (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Post Punk
I don't know why Television should be considered "post-punk". They were playing at CBGB and Max's Kansas City before most other NYC punk bands existed. I suppose in retrospect they can be considered "new wave" but they were an integral part of what was later called the "punk" scene in NYC in the late 1970's. The problem with labeling "genres" of music (or any art form) is that it is really a practice of critics. In the late 1970's in NYC, the artists that played at the above-mentioned venues, (The Ramones, Blondie, Television, Talking Heads, etc.) did not originally refer to their music as "punk", "new wave" or whatever, but they, and other artists playing those clubs, (Wayne County, The Dictators, The Heartbreakers, The Shirts, etc.) seemed to know that they they were part of a movement that was outside the mainstream music of the time. I didn't want to necessarily edit the main article since I couldn't find specific quotes; I was just there at that time and remember it. Proclivities (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree; they were fully formed musically long before post-punk happened. Ceoil  sláinte 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article makes clear that, in addition to Television, several other bands that existed before the punk movement or that emerged along with it "were retrospectively defined as post-punk": In England, "Some bands classified as post-punk, such as Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire, had been active well before the punk scene coalesced." In the U.S., "The later work of Ohio protopunk pioneers Pere Ubu is also commonly described as post-punk." These statements, like the one concerning Television, are all supported by citations of quality sources. The preceding historical discussion explicitly covers the very point you raise, Proclivities, that the band was "playing at CBGB and Max's Kansas City before most other NYC punk bands existed." Please take a look at the first paragraph of the Early history section, which begins with the New York City subsection. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you meant about it being "covered" earlier in the article; I guess it was just the "post-punk" label that inspired me to open this discussion before considering prior mentions in the whole article. Thanks for pointing that out.Proclivities (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the term "post punk" is that people that use it tend to misunderstand or misrepresent "punk" music. The term is in vogue due to the Simon Reynold's book, but he had a very definite agenda (bolstering the bands he liked by maligning punk music) and was not very honest, even to the point of misrepresenting sources. A far less celebrated book,"Beat Punks" by Victor Brockris, is closer to understanding the bohemian aspects of punk music, which is why so many performers identified as "punk" went on to much more experimental forms of music (Lydon, Devoto, The Clash, Blondie). Even performers that can be situated as the tail-end of progressive rock (arguably Television) were not conventional. It's very difficult to label something "post-punk" when bands like Suicide were already playing in the early 70s, the supposed proto-punk period, and were an identifiable part of the scene, as were the Talking Heads. Heck, weird acts like Walter Stedding used to open for the Ramones as well. People just have to think about it for themselves and leave the boisterism to others.Alexhaniha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

Los Angeles
We need to get up a good section on the LA scene. I was surprised when I noticed there wasn't a subcategory for it. New York has its own tab, and so should LA. Instead, the subcategorization is in North America which is too broad. Tim010987 (talk), WikiProject Punk music, 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia?
"Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia".

When did Australia register as a major Punk centre? Well the same can be said for Canada...Toronto feeding directly off the New York scene as it was happening right at 75/76 and also Vancouver with the L.A scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.19 (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the article—the phrasing of your question suggests that you may not have. Punk developed—exactly as the sentence says—not only in the U.S. and the UK, but also in Australia: Radio Birdman and the Saints are two incontrovertibly seminal punk bands. Both formed even before the Ramones did, and the Saints' first single came out before any British punk band's. Yes, substantial punk scenes arose in both Toronto and Vancouver (starting in '76, not '75) but, just as you say, they initially fed off American scenes. Canada (like France, say, where a similarly substantial punk scene arose in Paris) is not a place where punk's development occurred in the same way as the three countries named.—DocKino (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This idea That The Saints and formed before the Ramones did is one I hear tear tossed about, and NEVER backed up by proof. All sources state that they formed in 1974. All sources state that the Ramones formed in...1974! There is existing footage dating back to very early in that year, of the Ramones performing one of their songs at CBGB's. Otoh, I don't know know if there's anything confirming that the Saints were already playing punk music during in 1974 (some punk bands started off in a different genre). Now, I'm not trying to make this a competition or anything, and I'm not definitively saying who was first. I'm just saying that I have yet to see proof that The Saints predate the Ramones, and I don't know where some people get this from. Theburning25 (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeframe and usages of the term "punk rock"
The first line says that "Punk Rock" developed between 1974 and 1976.... is quite simply crap. The expression "Punk Rock" was used long before Johny Lydon started dressing like Richard Hell. Likewise, some mention needs to be made of the fact that prior to people like Caroline Coon's misuse, the term "Punk Rock" referred not to a genre, but to a wide array of founds and ideas. 41.245.131.192 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the rest of the article? That date has nothing to do with the Sex Pistols. Zazaban (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my friend, what was meant was that prior to Johnny and the boyz the term "Punk Rock" was basically a basket into which anything could be thrown. Basically if you were a Rock band, but weren't Glam, or Metal, or Radio Rock, then you were Punk. In fact many groups that would today be labeled as "hippies" or "art rockers" and the very antithesis of punk, were at the time called "punk". It was only with the UK explosion of 1977 with the Pistols, Damned, Clash etc that Punk came to be seen as a single genre or sound, and suddenly there was a "Punk sound". prior to that anything that didn't fit neatly into little pigeonholes was Punk. Thus the idea of a "Punk Rock sound" was ludicrous, as Punk was a vast, diverse grouping. Punk was basically defined by what you were NOT. Getting into some very POV stuff, it still pisses me off today when some Sid Vicious clone type acts like they're all "Genuine Punk", whereas in fact they're blindly following like a lemming. Prior to the whole Grundy thing and its aftermath, Punk by its very definition meant that labels or dress code et al were meaningless. Now Punk is a rigid uniform bleh. Something needs to be added about what Punk Rock meant before it was appropriated by boring follow-the-fashion teenagers with too much time on their hands. 41.245.189.17 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the article, you'll find that it states, among things, "The term punk initially referred to the scene in general, more than the sound itself—the early New York punk bands represented a broad variety of influences," and "Bands from the same scenes often sounded very different from each other, reflecting the eclectic state of punk music during the era."—DCGeist (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That still gives the impression that "Punk Rock" was a focused, somewhat organized "scene". 41.245.155.173 (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is "What is the word Punk?". The original use of the word punk so many hundred years ago was for useless dead wood that was only good for tinder to start fires. From this people would call something or someone not of high quality as "Punk". The same way some people often say "he/she is just dead wood" when of no good. After the group the group the Kinks released the song "You really Got me" which was a simple song containing mostly three cords, it started a string of unprofessional groups with one off hits copying the style, hence the magazine critics calling it "punk rock" meaning amateur and not of high quality. The big difference between rock / hard rock / Heavy Metal and punk rock / Hardcore Punk is the quality and professional standard. Rock / Metal etc will have lead breaks and technical skillfull playing (or a good attempt at - thinking groups like early Venom) whereas Punk is not supposed to and will just be mostly strumming guitar rythms. Again in Rock / Metal etc the singing may be of a high harmonic quality where as in punk it will not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.52 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Alice Cooper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.198.88 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Pay to Cum.ogg
The image File:Pay to Cum.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Rationale added.—DCGeist (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fanboy POV-pusher
A user is repeating removing info and claiming that Alternative Rock did not come out of Punk. He seems to be doing so to perpetuate the myth that Punk Rock is some sort of pure genre that came from nothing and has never developed into anything else. This is absolutely and totally wrong. Zazaban (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Punk Ignorant
The above user who commented that a user who removed info regarding the punk rock article is absolutely misguided. That user is me. I never once posted that alternative rock did not come from Punk. I suggest that you get your facts straight. What I said was, grunge is not punk. Grunge and punk are not one and the same. They are as different as an apple is from an orange. I have been a hard core punk and a neo-punk since 1979. Since the early '90's, I've been involved in trying to revive punk during the grunge period of the 90's decade.

I will be blunt and unapologetic again... Punk IS NOT grunge. Never has been and never will be. Obviously from your answer, you do not know anything about punk, its fashion, history, or its influences. Punk is a genre in and of itself. It didn't spring from anything known at the time it was born; it obviously didn't come from disco and it certainly was not influenced by hippy music. I should know, since I have almost 30 years experience as a punk, have conversed with the inner circle of the punk greats, and even made recommendations to them in the early 80's.

This anti-punk clown therefore clearly does not know what he is talking about. He doesn't know anything even remotely relating to punk. He accused me of stating that punk did not come from alternative music. To correct you, I stated that punk IS NOT grunge. Don't make this same mistake again because it demonstates your low level of knowledge in this area and hugely dents your credibility. This shows that you do not like punk for some personal reason which wiki and I find very disturbing. Calm down. You are not correct in your statements. Marvinst (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A: To Marvinist - be civil.
 * B: The Ramones were founded in 1974, putting the origin year of punk firmly in 1974.
 * And C: To Marvinist, again - You personal experience in no way gives you more authority on the subject. That is not how Wikipedia works. Such assertions are called original research and are not valid as sources for articles. kingdom2 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one ever said that it was punk, you however said it had nothing to do with punk, which is a lie. Yes, punk did come from plenty of things around at the time it came into being. 60s garage rock was a huge influence. And to clarify, I do like punk as music, but I find the attitude of many of its fans to be annoying and elitist. Your comments said nothing other than 'I was around then, so shut up.' You made absolutely no effort to justify your point. Zazaban (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To Zazaban: Be civil. While you are right on all accounts, personal attacks (even if they are indirect) in no way help the discussion process. kingdom2 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment about attitude wasn't actually intended to be an attack. Oh well, I don't care for being accused of being some sort of troll. Zazaban (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to Zazaban's excellent analysis, we should also point out here that Marvinst's central plaint is, of course, void: The article nowhere states that punk is grunge. It characterizes punk as an important influence on grunge. Here are the two relevant passages:


 * "Alternative rock encompasses a diverse set of styles—including gothic rock and grunge, among others—unified by their debt to punk rock and their origins outside of the musical mainstream."


 * "In 1991, Nirvana emerged from Washington State's grunge scene, achieving huge commercial success with its second album, Nevermind. The band's members cited punk rock as a key influence on their style."—DCGeist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And his edits were in fact saying they had absolutely nothing to do with each other, not that they were simply distinct. Zazaban (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Zazaban
First, I will be civil as long as you're civil to me. So far, you're the one who shot the first volley when you called me "fanboy". In kind, I had no choice but to shoot it back to you; all's fair in love and war.

Second, I will counter your points with authentic references of my own which I will post for evidence that backs up my argument about punk's distinction. When I do, you better NOT remove them, pursuant to wiki's policy. Doing so will reveal you as a hypocrite, with all due respect.

Lastly, and again with all due respect, you are not an appropriate source for information regarding punk. If you fail to realize that punk and grunge have far less in common; that punk is in a class all its own and was not influenced by "60's garage rock" - whatever that means; and that your personal taste precludes me as a credible source from my long, personal experience in the punk industry, then, you cannot be allowed to further bend punk history to your personal liking.

To recap, I will provide adequate references. DO NOT edit the article back to its original falsehood when I do since I will have furnished you with proof/references.

Marvinst (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do not understand what "60's garage rock" means, then look it up. It is linked right there in the lead. Also, the point isn't that grunge and punk are similar, which, stylistically, they are not. The point is that grunge was influenced by punk, i.e. the grunge forerunners, before they started playing, listened to punk, enjoyed the music, and decided to start a band because of that enjoyment.
 * Besides, credible references and quotes, one of which directly from Cobain, that support this are already in the article. In other words, if you do find credible sources to prove your point, the most that you can do with them is add the information as a counterpoint while leaving what is currently already there there. kingdom2 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to kingdom2
OK, here we go again. To reiterate, 60's garage rock did not influence punk music. And I don't care what that long haired, anti-punk hippie Cobain was quoted as saying. You're going to depend your grunge history and contradict punk's with only ONE quote? And from a hippie who was part of a movement that helped bring punk down? That makes NO sense. I'm going to provide plenty a quote when the time comes that will vastly overshadow the quotes you have. And you godamn better not re-edit or I'll have you banned! I've done it before and I'll do it again!

By the way, I'm damn happy that idiot Cobain died. He did nothing for punk but bury it using stupid american grunge music. You lame americans don't know anything about and have no taste for style, fashion, or music. Marvinst (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Grunge came directly from punk. This post just shows that this is based on your personal dislike for the genre and not on facts. It is well established that grunge came from punk, and you'd have to rewrite almost everything documenting the history of music to deny that. Also, empty threats to have people banned aren't going to work, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to have a rational discussion, but oh well... kingdom2 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, everyone take a step back and remember to be civil in your tone - and yes, that's aimed at everyone. Keep the discussion polite and targeted on the article, not our personal views on the subject or the other editors. Marvinst: please don't threaten people with bans in an aggressive tone. If you feel that the article needs to be adjusted, then please, CIVILLY, provide reliable sources that back up your statements, and bring them here for other editors to discuss how they can be worked into the article. We have to back up the statements in the article, so you need to provide references to be used in that manner. Then, everyone can discuss it POLITELY, please. I'll keep an eye on things and try to provide comments from an outside angle as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically, Marvinst, there's absolutely no evidence that Zazaban is "bend[ing] punk history to [his] personal liking." The article is the product of the collaborative work of many Wikipedians, is strongly sourced, and reflects the current consensus views on all the matters being argued here.


 * I have already addressed the grunge issue, where Marvinst seems to be arguing not against the validity of any of the article's actual content, but simply in favor of a desire to have any mention of grunge entirely erased. Let's turn to the consensus view that punk has substantial roots in 1960s garage rock, even as it constitutes a distinct style and cultural movement. In addition to the multiple sources supporting this consensus view already cited in the article, we find that view expressed in books from leading publishers both generalist and scholarly (i.e., the most authoritative sources per Wikipedia's standards):


 * From the "punk rock" entry in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll (Rolling Stone Press/Summit Books): "Just before Britain's punk rock explosion, the Ramones had emerged from New York's more arty punk scene—alongside Talking Heads, Patti Smith and Television—with their stripped-down, hyperdriven remodelings of Sixties garage rock" (p. 449).


 * Laurain Leblanc, in Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture (Rutgers University Press), refers to punk's "roots in the machismo and 'masculinism' of '60s garage rock" (p. 47).


 * In Popular Music: The Key Concepts (Routledge), Roy Shuker describes Lenny Kaye's famous Nuggets compilation of 1960s garage rock: "In his liner notes, Kaye termed the genre 'punk rock', a prescient acknowledgment of garage rock's subsequent influence: the advent of punk rock in the late 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of interest in the garage bands, whose sound is not dissimilar" (p. 116).


 * In Dissonant Identities: The Rock'n'roll Scene in Austin, Texas (Wesleyan University Press), Barry Shank writes, "The musical roots of American punk rock lay in the midwestern and west coast garage rock of the midsixties" (p. 91).


 * I could go on...and on...but I'll get to my conclusion: It is unlikely that an attempt to rewrite the article so it argues against this consensus view will meet with any success, per our policies concerning standards of verifiability and avoiding giving undue weight to minority theories.—DCGeist (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to DCGeist
Your references DO NOT explicitly provide precise historical significance that punk rock was a result of 60's garage music. All it implies is that it gave it a facelift; not that it was influenced by it at all. And your references come from authors who themsleves have not been emersed in the vein of punk. For example, Roy Shuker (one of the authors you quoted from), is a post-hippie american. So, of course, he's going to credit his hippie origins as much as he can.

I AM GOING TO PROVIDE ADEQUETE REFERENCES AND PROOF. YOU WILL ACCEPT THEM OR I WILL ALERT WIKI ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LEANINGS TOWARDS GRUNGE AND AGAINST PUNK. BE A REAL MAN. ACCEPT THEM. Marvinst (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since logic has clearly left the building, I am just going to ignore any further posts and revert your inappropriate edits when they come. kingdom2 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's clearly the proper plan of action.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gently, folks, I'm trying to explain how things work to our friend here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism
I don't know if this has been raised in previous archived discussions, but of the 552 pages on my watchlist, this one is more prone to vandalism than any of them by a long shot. It is really rather annoying. Since this is a featured article and deserves some degree of watchfulness, I was wondering if we could get some type of protection on the article. I cannot be the only one who feels this way. kingdom2 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, looking at the history this could use a break. I'll semiprotect for two weeks and see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And as soon as the semiprotect goes down... bam! I think that this article might just be doomed to suffer from excessive vandalism. kingdom2 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would anyone here be overly opposed to a permanent semiprotect (or at least indefinite). kingdom2 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No opposition here. It's hard to find an IP contribution in the past six months that's been anything other than vandalism or spam.—DCGeist (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, there's only been eleven vandal edits to the article since the protection came off on the 9th - that's less than one a day. There's been more on this one that I watch, in comparison; there, I revert and carry on. The protection policy says that indef protection is only used in cases of sustained, heavy vandalism and things like BLP or content issues - less than one edit a day isn't sustained, heavy vandalism. If you feel that it's necessary, you can request from another admin, but right now I don't think it meets the requirements for indef semiprotection. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should ask youself why? Probably because this article is historically incorrect.  Suddenly Punk, which everyone knew was all about the UK, is suddenly an American form of music and the Sex Pistols are now some kind of passenger on Richard Hell's back and that UK punk is somewhere behind the US in importance when it comes to punk, languishing with Australia and soon (apparently) that famous Canadian punk scene!!  You can try to rewrite history but those of us who were there won't forget about the UK punk scene of 1976 and The Clash, The Stranglers, The Slits, Slaughter and the Dogs, UK Subs, Penetration, Stiff Little Fingers, X-Ray Spex, The Buzzcocks, The Damned, The Vibrators, The Ruts... no matter how much the American writers of Wikipedia try to rewrite history to pretend it happened otherwise. Of course what do you expect from the country who virtually wiped out their indigenous peoples, are the ONLY country who has ever dropped The Bomb in anger and then go around telling everyone they are the good guys?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.154.53 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

^Oh dear, what is it these little trolls hope to accomplish when jumping to conclusions and posting ethnocentric, warped nonsense like this? "Everything was born in England, screw you tasteless Americans blah blah blah!" I see this far more from British/Europeans against Americans than the reverse. How can they expect to be taken seriously, ever, let alone leave an actual positive impression of their country? from the country who virtually wiped out their indigenous peoples... Oh man, don't even know where to START with U.S. historical shaming from a British person. And mentioning this in a rock music discussion. Yep, they cannot possibly be expecting to be taken seriously. Theburning25 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

David Peel
There should be a reference to David Peel as an important protopunk musician. Songs like "Up against the wall motherfucker", "Here comes a cop" and others were certainly influential. Seeingmusic (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then be bold find a reliable source that mentions his importance and influence in protopunk. kingdom2 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea, here are some sources

http://books.google.com/books?id=04KtwVkHNv0C&pg=PA66&dq=%22David+Peel%22+punk&ei=OVXySabZCI2oyASay5yGCw

"Ahead of his time, Peel played folk music with the emphasis of punk rock and the arrangements of lo-fi pop."

http://books.google.com/books?id=DWto9_cXH1UC&pg=PA55&dq=%22David+Peel%22+punk&lr=&ei=D1bySaeVFImkzASco-HHBg#PPA55,M1

"David Peel is a New York-based musician who first recorded in the late 1960s, with Harold Black, Billy Jo White and Larry Adams performing as The Lower East Side Band. Though his raw, acoustic "street rock" with lyrics about marijuana and "bad cops" appealed mostly to hippies at first, the sound and DIY ethic make him an important, if little-credited, early performer of punk rock. "

From Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk

http://books.google.com/books?id=mkG7Y6_J7pUC&dq=Please+Kill+Me:+The+Uncensored+Oral+History+of+Punk,&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=WlfySYajD5DflQf76oC_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA64,M1

"The bill at the New York State Pavilion at the World's Fair was David Peel, The Stooges and The MC5. It was a famous show."

If it's ok I'll insert peel into the appropriate section? Seeingmusic (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good refs. Just remember to make sure not to assign him undue weight (usually only crops up in POV debates, but can also apply to other situations). The coverage he receives in the article should be equivalent to that of his peers and contemporaries. A sentence or two is fine, but don't go writing a paragraph. kingdom2 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but these are not particularly good refs. The Scaruffi is essentially self-published--there's zero editorial oversight at iUniverse. Doesn't pass WP:V. The McNeil/McCain oral history mentions Peel twice, but in neither instance is he identified as a significant pre-punk/protopunk/punk-inspiring figure. That leaves the strange Pigging book. It does seem to pass our WP:V standards, qualifying Peel for mention in the appropriate protopunk article, but no way does he belong in this general overview article on punk rock.DocKino (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Peel was instrumental in bringing Punk into the mainstream by appearing with John Lennon, being one of the first punk acts on Elektra records etc. I can't understand your argument that Peel's inclusion in a history of Punk book does not identify him as a protopunk figure, especially since you immediately said he belongs in the protopunk article. Being a protopunk musician who's first album "sold close to a million copies" certainly makes him acceptable to be in the protopunk summary of the general overview article on punk rock.

Another reference to Peel as an early Punk Rock artist. Jeffrey Lewis's history of Punk Rock. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QLxLHQW_M Seeingmusic (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, I love Jeffrey Lewis (12 Crass Songs? Genius.), but this doesn't come close to meeting our WP:Verifiability standards.—DCGeist (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but Please_Kill_Me:_The_Uncensored_Oral_History_of_Punk does, as does the Pigging book. There are only two things that need to be established. One, that Peel qualifies as a a protopunk musician. Two, that Peel is sufficiently notable to merit being in the summary of Protopunk. DocKino agrees with me that Peel is sufficiently notable to be in the Protopunk article. Being that he sold "close to a million copies" was on Elektra Records and Apple Records, as well as repeatedly touring with John Lennon, I can't see any logical explanation for why he shouldn't be in the summary of Protopunk. Both sides are in agreement that he is a verified protopunk musician, I can't see how there is any discussion as to whether he is notable enough to be included in this article. Seeingmusic (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things need to be understood here:
 * (1) We can all agree that Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk is the greatest source of all time, but it simply doesn't identify Peel as a significant protopunk musician at all or even link his music with punk rock, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.
 * (2) You have one, just one, decent source that connects David Peel to punk. I will accept that is sufficient to win him a brief mention in the protopunk article. What you don't seem to realize is that not everyone who might be mentioned in the protopunk article can be mentioned in the summary "Protopunk" section in the punk rock article. There's a reason that there's a whole separate protopunk article--to allow for more extensive discussion of the impact of significantly influential figures like The Stooges and MC5 and to allow for the mention of more marginally pertinent figures like Peel (that article really needs work--maybe you'd like to work on it?). There are other pre-punk figures I can think of who belong in the protopunk article because some connection can be drawn, but like Peel are not important enough to the development of punk to make it into the summary section here: the Holy Modal Rounders and The Monks are two that immediately spring to mind.
 * The fact that Peel toured with John Lennon and sold close to a million records is fine and dandy, but that doesn't make him a significant protopunk figure. Lots of people did all that and more--it doesn't make an artist particularly relevant to punk. Did any of the early punk acts cover a Peel song? Did any of the seminal punk musicians cite Peel as an influence? Was he a central figure in a widely recognized, significant protopunk scene, like Boston's Rat or the Cleveland circle? I don't see any evidence of any of that. If you can come up with some, I would be surprised, but it would definitely change my perspective. You did claim that it was "easy to find" "more" "solid references" that Peel was significantly connected to punk. Please find them; please do the work to make sure they're solid; and please make sure they actually say what you want them to say.DocKino (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto to DocKino above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NorthWest Punk
I know that most of the people who would read this think that the northwest in the seventies, eighties, nineties and now is Grunge and Alternative Rock. However there was a lot of Punk/Hardcore bands (and even so Grunge is a sub-genre of Hardcore). For instance in the seventies (punk) there was The Tupperwares, (who moved to L.A. in 79' and re-named the screamers) The Lewd, The FastBacks, The Wipers, The neo-boys, The Cheaters, The Vains, Meyce, The Telepaths and many more bands. In the eighties (hardcore) there were The Fartz, X-15, Crime and offs, The Precednts, The Snots, The Refuzors, Mr. Epp and the calculations, The Mentors, DOA, Subhumans, SNFU among others. During the nineties (both of the above and riot grrrl) there were Bikini Kill, Bratmobile, Excuse 17, Sleater-Kinney, The Gits, Mudhoney (Garage Punk/Grunge) to name a few. I think it should have a page about it or at least have more mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the hell is your point? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is there needs to be more mention of these bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification
I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in article
Hi, I added free-use photos from Wikimedia Commons that depicted several of the groups referred to in the article (e.g., The Cramps, Minor Threat, etc.). An editor removed these images calling them "image clutter". In both cases, these photos were the only image in their respective sections. I don't see how this is a case of "image clutter". The pictures that were put in followed the WP:Images guidelines, which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". The Cramps pic was put right after the Cramps were discussed, and the Minor Threat pic was in the Hardcore section, near the discussion of Minor Threat. Both groups are influential groups...it's not like I put up pics of some obscure groups. I'm just hoping to find support in the editor community for adding a few carefully-chosen pictures.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, After the Minor Threat and Cramps photos were removed a second time, in good faith, I tried to find out if the editor DocKino's assertion that the photos caused "media clutter" was grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I looked in WP:Images and in the WP:MOS (Wikipedia Manual of Style, section on images), and in the Music Project image guidelines. I was not able to find policies or guidelines stating that you cannot or should not have an image in a section that already has sound files. Could you please direct me to the policy or guideline that backs up your claim? Or, if it is a personal opinion or aesthetic preference, I would request that you consider that this article can be edited by other members of the Wikipedia community. Thank youOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is not a matter of policy or guideline. It is simply a matter of editorial decision-making, which involves the personal opinions and aesthetic preferences of all concerned. It is your personal opinion that the images should be added; it is mine that they should not. You see no aesthetic problem with, say, having three media elements in a modest-sized subsection ("Second wave"/"North America"); I do see a problem--the problem of image/media clutter. (As another point, this part of the article follows a chronological structure. The period covered here is 1977-78; it is far from ideal to include a photograph that shows musicians' visual style from 1982.) Concerns about image/media clutter are commonly raised as part of the editorial decision-making process, as are many, many other matters (e.g., word choice, emphasis, structure) that involve personal opinion and aesthetic preference. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against having three pieces of media in this subsection, nor is there any policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against having four, five, six, or seven pieces--just as there is no policy or guideline that prohibits or explicitly argues against, say, devoting a paragraph in the subsection to The Sillies. But would any of these be wise and productive editorial choices? I believe not. DocKino (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Ramone's downstrum technique
Is there a reason this article does not mention how Johnny Ramone was influenced by Jimmy Page's guitar playing on "Communication Breakdown" and subsequently, popularized the downstrumming technique in punk rock? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source on it, you are welcome to adding it to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't, that was pure speculation... Ramone liked some of there stuff, but he hated alot of what they were doing, he got that from the Stooges and the Mc5, and his always cited that...--DavisHawkens (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a valid source for it in the Jimmy Page article. GripTheHusk (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt that be enough?--Applegigs (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's arguably enough for the articles on Page and/or Ramone, but the opinion of one other musician (Andy Shernoff of The Dictators) about the source of Ramone's technique is hardly significant enough to be mentioned in this general overview article.—DCGeist (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ok -- i give in to what everyone else agrees on.--Applegigs (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound samples
Why are there two sound samples in the sections "Second Wave/North America", "Hardcore punk", "Punk revival", and three in "First wave / New York", but none in "Emo", "New Wave" and "Anarcho-punk". I suggest cutting one from the earlier, and adding a sample each to the latter. Thoughts? indopug (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest for New wave or Anarcho? For NW, I'd like something from the Specials or Talking Heads. Anarcho would have to be Crass; their page has a sample, but its not very good. Emo I dont care about. Ceoil (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking "Psycho Killer" for New Wave. I don't much about anarcho or emo to be honest. indopug (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Coil
I'm not very knowledgeable about the band, but is the linked Coil (in the queercore/riot grrl section) the same Coil the article means to be referring to? As far as I can glean from the linked article, the industrial band Coil that's linked has no substantive connection to punk or to queercore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.35.59 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read through again--Coil often dealt with implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, gay subject matter. Here's a Google Books reference, with this great line: "Nick Cave walked out on us saying we were too gay." DocKino (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't necessarily make it punk rock though. This article is about the music genre, not the attitude, we have got Punk subculture for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question specifically discusses the antecedents of queercore, not all of which are punk, and explicitly notes, "queercore embraces a variety of punk and other alternative music styles". The mention of Coil here is analogous to the discussion earlier in the article of the general antecedents of punk rock, which, by definition, are something other than punk.—DCGeist (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Los Saicos
What about of Los Saicos the first band of punk in history, that Peruan band has a short action (1965-1967) but was really significant in the punk rock, with the same viral lyrics, and sounds caracterictics of the punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.201.164.6 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With proper sourcing, this sounds like something that would be good for our article on protopunk.—DCGeist (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the article. I've got a bunch of niggling things about it that are neither here nor there, but in general, I thought that the article was encyclopedic. Good work, crew (by crew I guess I mean that I assume the article was a collaborative process - a kind of punky DIY process, in fact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.102.8 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you from all of us who work on this--Guerillero (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

England
I think England should be in Regonal scenes. I mean Sex Pistols, Clash, The Damned, Exploited ect.. all came from england.... Megabar09 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This page needs to be rewritten
Unduly harsh comment removed by the author, in favor of a kinder, gentler, wiki-friendly exchange. My apologies to those offended by my lack of diplomacy. The gist of the deleted comment is that I think this article could be much better. Punkhistorian (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

what do you find wrong with it? --Guerillero (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nearly impossible to list everything here. I think it would be better to do it in installments. Punkhistorian (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Our "punkhistorian" is joking. Here's ph's true area of expertise.—DCGeist (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial comment deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, little buddy, tell us your real name, you much-respected editor and/or co-writer of several books, and I'll share with you my opinion of the quality of this Featured Article. Can't wait to be impressed by your professional credits!!—DCGeist (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of controversial comments deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try to stay civil Punkhistorian and remember no personal attacks. There IS a large group that edits this. Your ethos fails because you refuse to back up your statements. Why should we believe you if you offer no proof that you are a well known write/editor. (If you want to edit anything remember to cite your sources and your books can't be used by you because it would be a Conflict of interest I hope this helps --Guerillero (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Further explanation of comments deleted by authorPunkhistorian (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. So what specific things do you have a problem with?--Guerillero (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article, whose content has been developed through an extended, collaborative process. Discuss any substantive concerns, especially any changes you believe should be made to the lede, on this page and attempt to develop a consensus for them. By the way, Punkhistorian, your concerns with this article might be more credible if Jobriath were not so poorly written and sourced.—DCGeist (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember reading anywhere that one has to "discuss concerns" or "develop a concensus" to edit a page on Wiki. Tell me something, DCGeist. You've "extensively expanded and revised" this article. Do you think it's well-written?? Do you think it's historically accurate or provides a balanced, informed, seasoned perspective of the subject? Frankly, with articles like this to your credit, you're in no position to criticize anything that I or anyone else has written or edited, so get off it. I spent less than an hour editing the Jobriath article, for the first time on Wiki, and it's far better than what preceded it. I'm also not finished. How many years have you been editing this "Featured Article" for? I hope you'll stop the sophomoric personal slurs and get back to the real issue at hand. -- Punkhistorian (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes,the article is very well written and historically accurate. Well sourced, it gets right many facts that certain popular online sources get wrong. As for developing consensus in Talk for substantive changes to Featured Articles, yes that's common practice and a good idea, too. Now, let's take a look at some of the problems with your recent, low-quality edit whose specifics you did not feel were worth discussing with your fellow Wikipedians (despite Guerillero's request):
 * Australia as a primary site of punk's development eliminated, despite the fact that the well-cited main text confirms this; despite the fact that the first recognized Australian punk single preceded the first recognized British punk single; despite the fact that the first recognized Australian punk EP preceded the first recognized British punk EP or LP.
 * Punk's roots in garage rock eliminated, despite the fact that the well-cited main text confirms this. As a side effect, this edit results in a deeply vacuous sentence.
 * Poor, inconsistent style (proto-punk) introduced.
 * Improper comma (between "mainstream" and "1970s") introduced.
 * Senseless "or" added between "political" and "anti-establishment". As a side effect, this edit also produces an improper comma.
 * Needless addition of four band names resulting in an ungainly mess of proper names inappropriate for a lede (we call this "example creep") and a loss of appropriate focus on the most significant early proponents of punk (we call this a problem of emphasis).
 * Senseless and improper replacement of "around" with "throughout" in description of punk's international spread during 1977. You really believe "throughout" is superior to "around"? There's just one plausible basis for that: if punk reached Africa, Indonesia, Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, etc., etc. in 1977. I was not aware that it did. Please provide us with your sources.
 * In sum, I'm afraid that the evidence of your writing demonstrates that you have little basis for complaint about anyone else's.—DCGeist (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Globalize
This article needs attention from an expert. At the moment it is way too Americocentric. --John (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article mentions the US, UK, Austrialia and other countries. Could you be a little more specific about the problems?-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the specific thing that brought this to my attention was the recent addition of the Suicide Commandos to the lede of the article. But, on rereading the article, there are actually quite a lot of bits where the development of the movement is described from an American point of view. As a world resource we should not be taking sides like this. --John (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I removed the banner; its a wee bit agressive (for a FA esp.)and I think discussion here might be more cordial in its absence. I agree with you to a degree but my view is that its more due to sins of omission than editorial bias. Ceoil  sláinte 20:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ceoil and DCGeist for removing the worst excesses. More still needs to be done. I note that this article passed FA in 2004 and was last reviewed in 2007. Do we think it is still of the requisite quality to pass now? The standards have got harder and (I think) the quality of the article hasn't kept pace. --John (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Suicide Commandos inflation was rather much. Could you point to a couple more specifics? Do you think, for instance, that the "Rest of the World" section warrants expansion? That's the area that's probably attracted the most drive-by good faith edits over the past year, but it's very difficult to source up to standard.—DCGeist (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pick a fight with both of ye guys. Geist, in no way can Aus be put before the UK, in any punk context, in any section - it makes no sence. The average persion would know Saints, Birthday Party; thats it. You are putting Manikins and Radio Birdman before Sex Pistols, Souxie, Clash, Fall.


 * John, the article as stands is far superior to most FAs out there, so (veiled, I think) treaths of FAR are unfounded. Your problem seems to be with undue weight, which is more to do with whats absent that whats present. So, regig and add. Ceoil  sláinte 00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to fight with anyone or to threaten anyone with anything. I don't necessarily agree that the article as stands is far superior to most FAs out there; I do agree there may be an undue weight problem here. I will reread the article and think some more about it and I hope I can come up with something cogent over the weekend. --John (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ceoil: But there are several good reasons that Australia properly precedes the UK in the history section. The Saints and Radio Birdman are recognized as foundational punk bands--they both preceded the Sex Pistols. The Saints' first single preceded any British punk single. Radio Birdman's Burn My Eye EP preceded any British punk EP/LP. The British punk scene was bigger and much better known, yes, so much more space is devoted to it, but in most every quantifiable way, Australia came first.—DCGeist (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia?
Australia? Wihthout looking up, can anyone name ONE famous Australian punk band? Thought not. Okay, for those few people that can, can you honestly say (and furthermore have a source) that any Australian Punk band had any influence or significance whatsoever? I've had to look up to see The Saints mentioned, whoever they are. Now these guys are supposedly the Kings of Australian Punk, yet 99% of people wouldn't be able to tell you anything about them. Compare that to the Ramones, Sex Pistols or Clash. Even lesser-known US and UK bands like The Dictators, while not achieving any significant success themselves, still INFLUENCED later Punk bands. If this "Australian Punk Scene" really existed at all, it existed entirely within a bubble, and seems to be entirely derivative of the American and British bands that created the scene, had the most(all of) the influence, and are the best-known. I mean, I know of various Japanese or French or Canadian Punk acts, yet these countries are not mentioned as they were not responsible for the formation of Punk Rock, and are simply bands that were influenced by the US and Uk bands(and most certainly not influenced by Australian bands). Many Canadian, for example, bands have had far greater success, and a much more lasting impact and influence than any Australian band. So why have Australia in the very first sentence of the article? Did an Australian create the article? It doesn't make any sense. Smiles The Clown (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you have heard of them or not makes no difference. The Saints and Radio Birdman were clearly as early if not earlier than the US and UK counterparts (read the articles on the bands), so it is not a case of them being "entirely derivative of the American and British bands that created the scene". And they certainly had influence on bands outside of Australia in the later 70's and 80's. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether you or I have heard of them, it's whether the public at large have. And in this case, that would make them non-notable. You also say that "The Saints and Radio Birdman certainly had influence on bands outside of Australia". Would you care to provide a reliable source for that? Now, another problem is this article states that Punk Rock developed between 1974 and 1976, which is an error. In fact "Punk Rock" was coined in the 1960's to refer to what is now termed "Garage Rock". These bands, such as The Seeds and The Shadows of Knight predate all the above bands by years and were the first termed "Punk Rock". But it gets better...these bands directly influenced bands like The Stooges (formed late 60's) who were also termed "Punk Rock". They also influenced the New York Dolls(formed 1971). The Stooges and The New York Dolls in turn influenced everyone from The Dictators, to the Harlots of 42nd Street, to The Ramones, to Patti Smith, to Television(formed 1972 featuring Richard Hell, who later formed the Heartbreakers, and then The Voidoids), The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Damned etc etc. One could say that The Sex Pistols were sort of a cross between the Dolls and The Stooges(and the original primeval Pistols were formed in 1973) Likewise The Ramones, Patti Smith, Television all predate the mythical "1974" that the article states as fact. All the US and UK bands can be linked to one another, though not necessarily directly. For instance The Heartbreakers were formed by Johnny Thunders(ex-New York Dolls) and Richard Hell(ex-Television). Original Sex Pistols bassist Glen Matlock played in Iggy Pop(ex-Stooges)'s band, Malcolm Mclaren managed first the Dolls, then The Pistols etc etc etc. Thus we find that we have a Punk CONTINUUM beginning with the US "garage Rock" bands through the early Stooges etc (referred to as "Proto-Punk" (wtf?) by wikipedia, through the early 70's New York bands(still called "Proto-Punk" hehe)(as well as the early 70's UK Pub Rock scene), through the mid-70's New York and London bands(as well as other US and UK bands) through to the so-called "emergence" in 1976. At no point in this continuum does any Australian band figure into things. Likewise, by about 1975 you already had clear branches of Punk developed, although this article states that happened later. Now, while it is possible that a separate Australian "Punk scene" developed independently, the fact remains that a)no one outside Australia heard about them b)all the US and UK bands were connected in a web, while the Australian bands were entirely separate c)all subsequent bands (such as Green Day, Husker Du etc) claim the US and UK bands, NOT any Australian bands as their influences d)nobody outside of Australia has heard of Radio Birdman to this day. Who IN Australia has even heard of them? e) The US bands, certainly, predate any "Australian scene", including highly visible bands such as The Stooges. And was the word "Punk" ever actually used in relation to the Australian scene AT THE Time, or was it retroactively? Smiles The Clown (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And EVERY Punk Rock band formed after the magic "1974-1976" period whether from Brazil or Bulgaria, Japan or Germany, France or Finland has stated the US and UK bands as influences, not Radio Birdman (who apparently WERE a big influence...on Men At Work ). If The Saints etc influenced other Australian bands, good for them. However that does not change the fact that they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the real Punk Rock scene/timeline. There were quite probably other scenes that sprang up independently of the US/UK bands, but they're not listed here, as they had no impact on the Main scene, and likewise, are largely unknown and non-notable. Well, the same goes for the Australian "Punk" bands. Smiles The Clown (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider spending less time ranting and more time reading. As the article states, "In December 1975, [Radio Birdman] won the RAM (Rock Australia Magazine)/Levi's Punk Band Thriller competition", months before the word "punk" was applied to the London scene. You fantasize about whether "the public at large have" heard about this band or that, but the simple fact is that the discussion of the early Australian punk scene is sourced to books that meet the Wikipedia standard for "most reliable sources". Instead of your subjective, unprovable, and irrelevant opinions about what "99% of people" would or wouldn't be able to tell us and what qualifies as the "real Punk Rock scene/timeline", bone up on our verifiability policy. We'll all benefit.—DCGeist (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be so rude. Well, how about the May 1971 (yes that's 1971) issue of Creem magazine, where the term "Punk Rock" is sued to refer to those American bands. There were numerous "Punk" writings, specufically around New York, long before The Saints or Radio Birdman ever formed. You simply state that the term "Punk" was used in Australia prior to it first being used to refer to eg. The Sex Pistols. However, both the word "Punk", as well as the genre existed in the USA long before. Smiles The Clown (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * http://rockcriticsarchives.com/interviews/davemarsh/01.html


 * http://www.fastnbulbous.com/punk.htm

Sadly, the Creem archive doesn't contain the articles listed above(I don't think anyway). But lookee here:


 * http://www.creemmagazine.com/_site/BeatGoesOn/IggyPop/OfPopAndPiesPt001.html

Yes, from December 1970. And guess which word is used to describe The Stooges and their fans? Hmmm.... Smiles The Clown (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We know all that. That's why it's mentioned in the article, under "Etymology".   But this article is about the mid-70s version of "punk". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that I am now confused. There are reliable sources that show that Punk rock was around since at least 1970, and even called Punk Rock then. Likewise the influence of these c1970 bands on the mid-70's bands is also shown with reliable sources. And many of the mid-70's people performed alongside the c 1970s people (such as Matlock or Steve Jones performing with Iggy Pop). Thus the CONTINUUM has been proven.

So how can the ORIGINAL Punks be swept away under "Etymology", and this article be about "the mid-70s version of "punk". If it has been shown that the mid-70s version is essentially the same thing as the early-70s version, just obviously coming a few years later? Certainly, rather than claiming that "Punk" emerged during the period 1974-1976, it should be made clear that Punk actually emerged at least as soon ans 1970 (and possibly earlier), but that it reached its commercial zenith in the mid-to-late 1970s. That's something totally different to claiming that a band that only formed in 1974 was one of the founders of the genre, and dismissing the true originators under the "etymology" section, even claiming that 1974 was the Starting Year, when in fact by that point some of the True Founders were already paking it in, just when Radio Birdman, The Saints, The Clash etc were only starting to form. Smiles The Clown (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, there is no difference between "the mid-7os version" and what is termed on Wikipedia "Proto-Punk". Same style, same sound, same attitude. Many mid-7ps bands covered early Punk, or just stole riffs, lyrics etc directly and tried to pass them off as their own. Thus there is no such thing as "Proto-Punk", and no such thing as "the mid-70s version". It's the SAME THING. ANY band that only formed in 1974 can not make any legitimate claim to laying the foundations of the genre. They can however (such as The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Clash, The Damned) claim to have POPULARIZED the genre. However, outside of Australia, The Saints and Radio Birdman have nowehere near the name value of Clash, Ramones etc. Smiles The Clown (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Punk rock" in the sense used in this article, and as it is now generally known, did not exist in 1970 - it emerged after 1974, although the music that developed then was influenced by earlier musicians like Iggy, the Velvets, NY Dolls and so on. The fact that the term was used once or twice to descibe music pre-1974 is interesting and relevant, but shouldn't shape the whole article. The current article, in my view, does a pretty good job of explaining what happened.  To say that "there is no difference between "the mid-70s version" and what is termed on Wikipedia "Proto-Punk"" is not just wrong, it's not supported by reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Incidentally, this argument is identical to the one over whether "Rock and roll" started in 1954, or at some indeterminate time before then.  There were plenty of records before 1954 that used the term "rock and roll", but it's pretty hard to deny that what was started by Presley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc etc at that time was a new movement which was called "rock and roll" and deserves its own article.  Same here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the earlier point. Certainly after 1974 the newer bands such as The Sex Pistols and The Clash popularized the music, and made both the music and the term "Punk Rock" far better-known than it was in the early 70's, but that does not mean that the Class of '74 had anything to do with the creation. If I'm not mistaken your point is that because the term "punk Rock" did not widely appear in print print to the mid-70s, there was thus no really Punk Rock music or scene? I find fault with this. The very term "Punk" refers to outsiders, rebels, rogues etc., as the article states. Thus it makes perfect sense that no mainstream publication would feature The Stooges, New York Dolls etc. Thus magazines wrote about The Osmonds and Creedence Clearwater Revival, not Iggy Pop! Thus, the Punk scene remained an "alternative" scene. Thus few publications even acknowledged the bands, let alone used the term "Punk Rock". It was only in about 1976 that the bands became more popular, and as a result the term "Punk Rock" became widely used. However, using The Sex Pistols as an example, The 1975 Sex Pistols were not featured at all in magazines, and the same magazines and newspapers that splashed them on the front page in 1977 did not even note their existence, nor use the term "Punk Rock" in 1975. Does that mean that the 1975 Sex Pistols were not Punk Rock, and that Punk Rock itself did not yet exist in 1975? Certainly not, it was still largely underground, as it had been since at least 1970. After the newer bands became well-known, so it naturally followed that the term "Punk Rock" would appear in print (and in public speech) far more commonly. Smiles The Clown (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Using another analogy, take the Seattle bands and their sound.....The sound was formed by bands such as The Melvins, Green River etc.in the early 80's. Newer bands came(and went). Since these bands were Aleternative Rock, few, if any, magazines wrote about them, even in passing. It wasn't until about 1991, when Nirvana, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam(none of which were original Seattle bands, although Ament and Gossard have a claim through earlier bands) made the big breakthrough. Thus from 1991 everyone knew about the Seattle sound, and every magazine from Time Magazine to Tiger Beat was writing about this music. But does that mean that Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the originators of the sound, and that the sound was created "between 1989 and 1991"? Of course not, it had been there far longer, it was just and underground sound before then, meaning that obviously few magazines would refer to it at all. After the big commercial breakthrough there are obviously far more references, and the terminology became far better-known. But Nirvana and Pearl Jam did not CREATE The Seattle Sound/Grunge, they were merely the bands that took it from the underground to the mainstream. And in the same way The Sex Pistols et al did not create the Punk Rock sound. It had been around for years, just as a rebellious underground, well "Punk" sound. Once the Pistols, Clash, Ramones became popular, so it naturally followed that magazines began writing about Punk a whole lot more. Smiles The Clown (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All this is an interesting debate. But the bottom line is that it's your opinion, and your analysis - and that is not relevant here.  There are plenty of sources for the view taken in this article, that "punk rock" started in the mid-1970s.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth - although in this case I think that the article is both verifiable and factually accurate.  Even about Australia.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article itself states at least 4 references to "Punk Rock" prior to 1974, all referring to bands and a sound that the article, with reliable sources state heavily influenced the 1974-1976 bands. That's not just my opinion and my analysis, it' WP:COMMON SENSE. If it was called Punk Rock(as the reliable sources in the article itself state), and was directly responsible for what happened in 1974-1976(as the article states with reliable sources), then it's clearly more than my personal opinion and analysis. The only thing that was "my analysis" (and not just opinion) was to point out was that the fewer(but still very existent) references to Punk prior to 1976 is due to the simple fact that Punk prior to 1976 was less popular. After The Sex Pistols appeared on tv, then there were far more references to Punk as the genre became more mainstream. Again, that's not my opinion, that's common sense. Smiles The Clown (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For people who don't want to read through all of the above, here's the basic bullet points:
 * The article itself states (with reliable sources) that the term "Punk Rock" was used as early as 1970 to refer to certain bands, and also the sound, attitude, demeanor, and fans of those bands.
 * The article itself states (with reliable sources) that those 1970-1974 bands directly and unambiguously influenced the bands of 1974-1976 that are widely known as "Punk Rock".
 * Yet the article states that it is those 1974-1976 bands that are the creators of "Punk Rock". Going further, the person above points out how bands formed in 1974, and who remain largely obscure today, can be credited for creating Punk Rock, whereas 1970-1974 bands such as The Stooges and the New York Dolls can not.

I have taken exception to this line of deductive reasoning. The person above states that some sources credit the 1974-1976 bands with originating Punk Rock, therefore the article should state that. Fair enough, except the article right now states the existence of the Punk Rock bands from 1970, as well as providing reliable sources to the usage of the term "Punk Rock" from 1970, and of course that the Punk bands of 1970-1974 directly influenced the 1974-1976 bands! Smiles The Clown (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your change to the article's well-established lede has been reverted. Don't attempt to make the change again unless you achieve consensus here in support of it.—DCGeist (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to a midway position in relation to the ref to Australia in the opening sentence. The structure of the article as a whole is OK, in my view, as are the refs to the Australia punk scene in the main text.  But the ref to Australia in the opening sentence - appearing to give it the same significance as the development of the music in the US and UK - is in my view giving it undue weight.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem here. The opening sentence is accurate and reflects the global perspective we seek, while the citation of bands from the U.S. and the UK but not Australia at the beginning of the second paragraph properly suggests the relative importance of the respective scenes. DocKino (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If that was directed towards me, I did not remove the "Australia" bit, I was the one who put the "citation needed" tag, to suggest that the "1974" starting date was not backed up by facts in the article, including the article's listed sources. I am reinstating the tag, as there was no attempt to show it unnecessary, you stated "no consensus to change long-standing lede". That is not the point however. Yes, the "lede" has been long-standing, but the point of Wikipedia is for articles to be constantly improved, and also for the articles to reflect the information in the source. Quite frankly, I am astounded that nobody picked out this obvious error before. Perhaps they did, but they were insulted, and simply gave up hope and left. I have not changed anything in the article itself. I merely stated that a citation was required to show how Punk developed no earlier than 1974, and that Australia was part of the original formation, when the references/sources state something completely different! Anyone who is unaware of the story will have their head rolling as they read the opening ststement that Punk began in 1974 in the USA, the UK, and Australia, and then very soon afterwards read about Punk bands being called as such during 1970-1971, with no mention of Australia. Again, I did not alter the so-called "consensus to the lede", I merely stated that some sort of reliable source was required if the very first sentence is going to contradict what is later stated in the article, with reliable sources! Smiles The Clown (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried searching for another magazine article, but found only some plagiarist person passing it off as his own work! Anyway, here's a link to the only copy/page I could find... http://punkhistory0.tripod.com/punk/id1.html

Note again how the New York Dolls are called "punk" and references are made to US Punk bands from "the early 70's". So we have this, at least 2 Rolling Stone(the magazine not the band) reference, at least 3 Creem references, as well as the countless published books and articles in magazines referring to bands prior to 1974 as "Punk Rock". For instance in a book I have there is a picture of a flier from 1972 advertizing a Punk Rock night as Max's......Now, I am not for a moment disputing that many modern-day articles about Punk Rock declare that Punk began either in 1974 with The Ramones, or even that Punk only began with The Sex Pistols(some even going as far as to claim that The Pistols only formed in 1976!) However, facts are facts. Whatever any later "reliable source" may state, there are reliable sources that state that there was a Punk Rock scene and sound prior to 1974. There are writings/articles etc FROM the time(ie before 1974) calling the sound, the bands, the fans "Punk Rock". The article itself refers to some of these, then immediately attempts to brush this aside by saying "Proto-Punk", even though the Wikipedia "Protopunk" article states that there is no clear meaning to the term "Protopunk" and it was only coined many years after the event! So we can either go with the truth(complete with the reliable sources, both modern and from the time), or we can go with some revisionist story about Punk being created in 1974 by bands who, according to some of the sources listed, hadn't even been formed yet! Smiles The Clown (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)