Talk:Rocker (subculture)

Use of the term "Cafe Racer" to refer to Rockers
In the 2014 documentary Timeshift - Mods, Rockers, and Bank Holiday Mayhem at about the 12:10 mark, cultural historian Bill Osgerby says that Rockers were initially called "cafe racers." The American Dr. Hunter S. Thompson refferred to bikers as "cafe racers" in his 1995 article from The Cycler, Song of the Sausage Creature. Thompson had a history of covering bikers and was a biker himself. Also, page 11 of the 2014 book Cafe Racers: Speed, Style, and Ton-Up Culture says, "The original term cafe racer was South London derogatory slang for a young motorcyclist who tore up the highways on hot bike and hung out in roadside cafes, rather than risking himself on the racetrack. The term was soon civilized and became a badge of honor among road riders enamored of speed in 1950s-1960s England." Only later did the term apply to the modified bikes, the book seems to claim, "The table also stuck to the bikes themselves, which were already part of a 40-year tradition."

While I understand that a newspaper article or other work from the time period would help in supporting this argument, dismissing the BBC documentary as an unreliable source because it's new makes no logical sense. If we were to do that if every page, we'd have to throw out all modern encyclopedias and textbooks in our citations. Wikipedia actually prefers secondary sources, which include modern research. Besides, using only primary sources (which an article from the time could potentially be) would be in violation of No original research. Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is how Wikipedia is distorting the history of the world (via SEO), with editors promoting use of modern narrative corruption, and/or modern publications, relating to alleged-only events of 60-years previously, and with over-prominent emboldened text in the first few words of an entirely-different article. There are no known published UK references to evidence the Americanism 'cafe racer' was applied to UK society in the 1950s and 1960s, or used in UK primary or secondary sources prior to 1970s. It was little-known and rarely-used in American print, evidenced by the lack of citations offered up. Only the rise of internet has meant that what Wikipedia describes as WP:CIRCULAR is regularly happening, in that unregulated internet writers are copying what went before, and with hard-publication authors using keyword-searches for the same. They can write anything fictional, and you can cite it. For this reason alone, Wikipedia can NEVER be a reliable source, as was always widely acknowledged, and now the public are becoming more-distrustful. By continuing in this vein, encouragement is being offered for continuation to distort and embellish - using hyperbole - what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with content that cannot be proven to have existed, historically. Dictionaries of modern slang are just that - street-talk, and recent-only. I have researched this for three years, including contact with the BBC - they have no provable sources, and assumed Wikipedia was correctly-written, not distorted and exggerated. I researched the 1963 American reference after a request from the BBC in 2013, and added the full-quote into the citation in this edit, 18 November 2013. This is, indeed, a PRIMARY SOURCE, and not reliable, being a mailed, subscription-only newsletter from a motorcycle club which allowed guest-writers, in this instance writing in the local American vernacular. Vague, but at least it verifies the published date, as specifically queried by the BBC (screen shots were sent by me). The BBC use primary sources - anecdotal accounts - unsubstantiated GOSSIP for entertainment-value only (in common with other video-makers) - and refused Freedom of Information (as a UK government organisation) payment declarations for on-camera interviews and other information given, under an exemption (refusal to myself by the BBC). They did name one source, someone I did not know, but has written a few books recently (not a mainstream journalist). As the BBC queried the 1963 reference directly to me, you can conclude, as I have done, that they also use Wikipedia for quickness of research (stated to have insufficient time or money to evaluate secondary sources). Article will correctly be tagged as better source needed; please do not remove this maintenance tag,, as a new editor you have already established a long list of criticisms at your talk page, and I imagine other long-standing editors will pitch-in here, probably in your support. Looking at your worklist involving historical articles, I hope now you are better-able to understand the folly of promoting - as I stated - an unreliable 2014 video (I surmise it contains no still-frame of any dated UK publication proving 'cafe racer'). Why would you want to argue that a dated publication was Primary, hence inadmissable, instead favouring an unprovable 2014 compilation to enable placement of the words in the lede in emboldened-text? What's your motivation, here? The policy is more likely to be Verifiability, not truth. If Rockers were referred to as 'cafe racers' in the 1950s and 1960s (and alleged South London slang), it should have been contemporaneously reported, at least a little or extensively, in print or Pathé News-type information film-clips. That none are available to programme-makers could be why monetary inducements for anecdotal accounts are offered? Alternatively, it all could have been suppressed, by government intervention. You choose which is more likely.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now watched the video several times. The on-camera quotation from the cultural historian is as follows: "During the 1950s it was common to use terms like Ton-up Boys, Cafe Racers...the term Rocker really comes into usage in the early 1960s." Although UK is not specifically mentioned, the implication, in the context of the programme, is clear. In England, we would call that a 'throwaway remark'. I emailed the person concerned at his university, enquiring if he had any historic published sources to substantiate the claims - that it was common in the 1950s to use the term cafe Racer - and received the following reply:"Thanks for your email. I'm sorry you were upset by the documentary. I will certainly bear your comments in mind in the future. Thanks for your input. best wishes,"I am still disputing the validity and application of "Cafe racer" to British society, and as such the primary-source, made-for-entertainment, BBC video promoting unsubstantiated primary-sourced opinion should not be confused or equated with a 'text book', and should not be prominently displayed, emboldened, in the lede.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping Indy beetle. Rocknrollmancer your comment "" Reminds me of the statement that "soccer is an americanism for football".

ngram (1950–2008)
 * — This book predate the world wide web so it is not influenced by web usage.

The use in North America is (was?) to describe what they dubed a style of motorbike customisation:
 * "and had his stock bike converted into a 'cafe racer' a European styling fad that is taking America by storm. ... cafe racing racing got its start in England in the early 1960s..." Daily News 1974
 * "Only two acceptables a) the European cafe raced and ...." The Montreal Gazzet 1979

The earliest date of a publication I found searching Google Books that mentions "Cafe racer" was "he brought his Manta Ray Corvette and a GMC pickup with a brilliant custom paint job identifying it as the 'Dragon Wagon,' built to carry a brace of his wildest, cafe-racer motorcycles." 1971 in Automobile Quarterly Volume 26, Issue 2, New York

Lichter and d'Orleans (2014) state that "The original term cafe racer was derogatory south London slang for a young motorcyclist who tore up the highways on a hot bike and hung out in roadside cafes..." 

In the article café racer it is stated "" this needs a citation as it is stating a fact about usage in the 1960s. However whether or not a name for something is contemporary to the historical subject of an article is not relevent in the first sentence of an article. What is relevent is the name (or names) used in 21st century English. For example the New Model Army was not used at the time of the English Civil War or Interegnum, but it is the commnon name used in modern sources, so Wikipedia uses it, as it does for the War of the Roses and more obviously the Hundred Years War. -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As you are admin you will be well aware that WP is a purveyor of lies and falsehoods (not my words), allowed and explained under WP:TRUTH. If it's 'published', whatever that means in new media, it's good enough for WP. One editor (he of the 'lies and falsehoods') is determined to write American folklore into WP (including one of his Facebook friends), and has been trying to use very-recent Museum websites as WP:RS; they are not publishers, they can be staffed by volunteers and likely with no archives the content has been created (plagiarised) by webmasters and/or interns. Cafe Racer is American schmaltz and hype created circa 1973 by distortion of a known, underused phrase with retro-application to an earlier society, when there is no tangible evidence it was ever applied thus, contemporaneously. One editor, a law professor in American parlance, has opined, generally, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that it is not possible to prove a negative. A lot of the 'damage' to world history was done by Mike Clay, who canvassed UK periodicals in 1987 to identify willing individuals to participate, from whom interviews were obtained and then were presented as what WP considers a secondary source (his book); he claimed at the time to be a 'professional writer', but was criticised for his own partisan views regarding his background as a writer with the Ducati Owner's Club. Mike Seate has done similar with the his television show, interviewing glory-seeking individuals then presenting it as false-history (factitious false narrative). These are made-for-entertainment, not intended as the equivalent of historic text books, and the WP flawed system perpetuates the myths. A similar creation - myth and local folklore - has occurred in recent years in the far east and WP has been the unwitting vehicle to nuture and promote the fiction - see Underbone. There is no convincing historic basis in any language for this - Malay, Hokkienne (Mandarin) or pidgin English, it was created by street punks in the far east, yet an editor can retro-apply it, factitiously, to a 1958 major occurence by internal linking; now go to the date-corresponding permalink for Underbone which is entirely unreferenced. Another instance is where an American editor claimed a famous American is synonymous with his 'invention' developed between 1970-73 that I knew existed in UK during 1960s; I've now pushed the date back to 1956. This was at Talk, largely buried but it's indiscriminate, ill-informed chat that can get transferred to articles on a world platform, based on the alleged-inventor's WP:SPS website (now at Wayback). These are examples of how WP is used to distort history, passively or otherwise. I have largely quit submitting prose nowadays, only as a last resort, and the emergence of new media as a secondary source is but one reason. Something I wrote on WP was transferred to one of these sites within five days by self-confessed wannabe writers at a WP:SPS, no acknowledgement, with a copyright footer, probably. I don't have time to fight out the semantics of WP, that's what the drama boards are for. I have very important other stuff to do, otherwise I would quote from the Mike Clay pieces (in the house). He was allowed to promote his partisan, pre-existing cafe racer viewpoints by contributing as a guest author. Paul D'Orleans writes occasionally for WP and makes mistakes; I've also notified mistakes to his (former) blogsite. He has recently established a foundation claiming it to be educational, with a team of experts-in-everything available - thanks for reminding me. Lichter is a photographer. I have their book - in the quote above, D'Orleans is just repeating that which went before, with no unique knowledge. Where very-modern sources are referenced, I would prefer that WP is transparent by stating clearly "in 2014, Paul D'Orleans wrote...". I should also confirm the American magazine Car Craft (1978) described both cars and occupants therein as cafe racers. The general public cannot be universally expected to know that WP is intrinsically an unreliable source, and taht allowances should be made for inaccuracies; those who plagiarise content from WP are - quite simply - readily-enabled to disemminate the falsehoods wider. This summary is just the tip, a few elements of many. The difficulty is not just in establishing who, what, where, when but why. Lastly, I've just learned a new Americanism - haze. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Rocknrollmancer thank you for your detailed reply however you did not address the point I raised in my last paragraph above. -- PBS (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding trivial, controversial, poorly-supported sensationalism into Lead Summary
Twice now editor has introduced controversial remarks (,, the latter without an edit-summary) into the lede summary with no mentions in the body of the article. This I believe is contrary to WP:LEAD and is an example of soapboxing, trying to establish trivia and sensationalise in boldface content which is poorly-supported and is unmentioned in the prose. This editor wants me to take it to the mainspace talk page. Anyone interested can see the discussion and guidance I have tried to show at User talk:Indy beetle.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Rocknrollmancer for bringing the discussion here. Upon further review, I withdraw my assertion and will undo my edit. Additional research (which I will provide if you so desire) has shown that the term "wild ones" was thrown around more generally to refer to both mods and rockers collectively.


 * I don't see why Rocknrollmancer brought up my first edit, since I thought we already settled that. But I will stand by that edit, and I assert that it was not an attempt to "establish trivia and sensationalise in boldface content which is poorly-supported." I was able to provide two independent secondary sources for my assertion, and I thank Rocknrollmancer for finding a third. However, Rocknrollmancer concluded that since there was no primary source from the material from the era that used the term "cafe racers," that it would be best to put a better source needed tag on it.


 * But if we can have a single, modern source (not around from the 50's or 60's) in the lede support the the statement that "Rockers were also derisively known as Coffee Bar Cowboys," or even the thing about their Japanese equivalent, (both trivial for the opening, I would think) then we should work to seriously revise the lede.


 * In the future I will bring any substantial edits I have for this article to the talk page. Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits on rocker fashion & wear
In this BBC documentary (discussed before on this page) at the 12:25 mark, a former rocker testifies that the subculture would often wear white scarves over their faces when biking and had white seaboot socks pulled up and over the top of the shafts of their motorcycle boots. This is corroborated by footage and photographs displayed in the the film. I propose including this information in the article. Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just found that fiction has been added to Engineer boot relating to a primary sources (oral comments made by a wannabe on TV, standing around laughing about their bygones) in a 2014 made-for-entertainment video film: "The boots would become heavily associated with the American greasers, British rockers, and bikers that wore them in the 1950s and 1960s...The rockers would often wear their boots with white seaboot socks rolled down over the top of the shafts". This term (Engineer boot) is mostly unknown in UK, and we have never been able to buy such on general sale, (obviously ingnoring the rare eventuality of personal imports). I am an old shoemaker. They're not called "shafts" in UK, either. I knew the term from contemporaneous articles about Angels in the 1960s. Adding spurious content to POV-push is very bad form, and only permissible under the cop-out Verifiability, not truth. Primary sources are not reliable, as they only verify the opinion of the informant on the day of recording. In this case, the interviewee does not use the term "engineer boot(s)", so it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. This fiction is how Wikipedia re-writes world history, can get copied to other unregulated internet sites, and why WP has such a bad rep amongst the general readers.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've corrected this problem. I've seen you've re-added the "better source needed" tags to the phrase "cafe racers" in the lead. I hoped you would've realized that I originally removed them because they were already listed once. Having one tag within the ref and one outside of it is rather redundant. Also, according to whom is there "no historical evidence that the Americanism cafe racer was ever applied contemporaneously to British society". Is that your "expert" assumption? Is this simply because you haven't found anything satisfying? Is it with this same lens of yours that you can call an interviewee in the documentary a "wannabe"? As flawed as WP:VNT can be in application, I'm sure you know why it exists. Also, could you please show some WP:Good Faith when dealing with edits you find faulted? Your patronizing attitude has kept me from working on this article (whether or not you find that a beneficial thing, it's not indicative of improving a collaborative encyclopedia). Some of your words/actions come right out of Ownership of content. You do really seem to want to help Wikipedia, but I must say my personal interactions with you have been greatly discouraging. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Title
Maybe this page should form part of a more generic page titled "Rocker (Subculture)". This article should be titled "British Rockers" and be incorporated into the above mentioned page.

The "Australian Rocker" article is currently found buried under "Bodgies & Widgies". This Australian Rocker subculture, although similar & influenced by the British one, has a substantially different history, fashion & progression....and would make an interesting addition to this page. 60.240.181.62 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
The lead image has been tagged as when in June 2020, as there is no date indicated or suggested. As I commented above in 2016, the person to the right was born in 1949, so a reasonable guess would be circa 1969 for the image date.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)