User talk:AnthonyScottThompson

October 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Punk rock, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

-

I agree that was a week reference and should not have been added - sorry about. That said, the song, Flight of the Rat, is considered by many to be ground zero for punk rock. This is common knowledge among musicians (clearly tribal knowledge). The same is true of Communication Breakdown by Led Zeppelin. That is the big debate - which really was the first instance of Punk Rock. Neither needs a reference as the songs are self referencing..it's obvious in both cases even to the casual listener. Adding the old Johnny Ramone reference definitely added more color so it's great that we got that added as part of this exercise. Moreover, I am a music SME with a BA in Jazz/Comm Music. Trust me, this is accurate breaking down the both songs musically. Communication Breakdown is heading there but I would not consider it Punk Rock. Flight of the Rat, other than the singing, really defined what would become "the sound". It goes other places as the song goes on but the intro and intro hook are it! There is not doubt that is what would be modeled over and over again later.

Respectfully - --AnthonyScottThompson (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Punk rock, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay - I am not the one being disruptive and you are clearly being hostile both here and on the Punk Rock page. You have, observably crossed a line I have not.

Observable facts do not need references. That is basic in academics. The Zep song does need a reference as it is not an observable fact that "Communication Breakdown" had influenced the Punk movement like "Flight of the Rat". Jimmy Page has upstrokes after the first verse which are not what the Punk movement emulated. The drumming is also not punk but pure Zep. The base line is entirely too technical and busy. The DP song "Flight of the Rat" on the other hand is observably the pure punk sound when you break down just the Guitar, Bass and Drums. They do not really break from this style. Bands like the Romones and Sex Pistols clearly emulated this song - there is zero doubt about that when you compare the styling. Your editing attributed those factual observations about the DP song to the Led Zeppelin song which is dead wrong. You are the one being disruptive and muddling facts, not me. I have to change this back because the edit makes the entire thing incorrect. Unless you are an music expert and can counter these observations on a technical level, please leave it alone. I will give you till morning to explain yourself.

If Johnny Romone listen to Zep, you can be sure he also listen to and was influenced by DP. The Ramones really started this sound in 1973-74. I don't see how MC5 or Iggy Pop musically had any declarable influence on Punk Rock. That reference definitely needs a citation.

The reality is this edit/post was fine the way it was written the first time since these are observable facts - even the Zep song is close enough. The way people engaged in removing and changing this edit is rude and incorrect. No one should be engaged in curating history to there liking which seems to be what is happening on this page with bands like MC5 being added with no reference. They are simply a shitty rock band with no elements of punk music other than there presence of being uncomfortable and tense on stage while under the influence of a lot of drugs. They look like a punk band; I'll give you that.

To show the difference in etiquette and how this should have been handled, I will share the major punk reference in the MC5 Wikipedia page:

" "Crystallizing the counterculture movement at its most volatile and threatening",[1] according to AllMusic critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine, the MC5's leftist political ties and anti-establishment lyrics and music positioned them as emerging innovators of the punk movement in the United States.[citation needed] "

Notice the "citation needed". This is what should have happened instead of deleting the post multiple times and then mutilating an observed attribution of musical facts followed by threats. Also notice that this "needs citation" is around MC5's contribution as innovators of the punk movement. Their one proto-punk album, Back in the USA, was not the bands doing but the producers. The Band hated the album. To be innovators, the band has to go down the path and they most assuredly did not. Attributing songs from famous bands that liked to experiment is a different story. The fact is MC5 should not be mentioned so prominently on the Punk Rock page on Wikipedia yet everyone seems to be letting that slide. This is very misleading with regards to their contribution.

I'm going to report this entire situation and I'm not threatening; I'm doing. This is situation is ridiculous. That is happening right after this is posted. You are the one breaking the rules as written. Your edit is incorrect. Your exchange is completely disrespectful and unacceptable. I'm delivering facts. You - hostility and rude behavior.

Good Luck!

--AnthonyScottThompson (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * AnthonyScottThompson, Welcome to WP, it takes a while to understand how things work on the encyclopedia. Apologies in advance for the length of my post. Your comment was directed towards, but I’m going to jump in here – Arjayay, if I’m incorrect in my analyses, please correct me. Anthony, I understand your disapointment and frustration regarding your edits being reverted. I will attempt to explain why they were reverted almost immediately by three experienced editors. We have certain policies and guidelines that have been determined thru community consensus over the years (similar to what you call “the rules”). I’ve linked several in my comments below. I hope this is not overwhelming, and that you take a few moments to read through them.
 * Your contributions were added to the article lead, where it did not belong in the first place, here is why: according to our Manual of Style WP:MOS, the lead is a summary of content found later in the article. Led Zeppelin are Deep Purple are not expanded upon anywhere in the article. So your edit was contrary to WP:MOSLEAD. I can find nothing in True’s book that says the LZ or DP were a direct influence, so your citation is inaccurate and the sentences you added and the citation should be removed.
 * You added a Deprecated Source WP:DEPS for the Deep Purple statement. RYM (Rate Your Music) is user submitted content. RYM was deprecated in 2019 following a formal Request for Comment WP:RFC involving community discussion and consensus. See the entry under Rate Your Music here: WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I removed it for that reason, as user submitted content is considered a primary source, and is not considered a reliable source. We use secondary sourcing on the encyclopedia. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog, which is why we don't use this type of sourcing.
 * There is only one mention in True's book about Deep Purple - one of the Ramones said: ”I never liked it liked it when music took that metal turn and Black Sabbath and Deep Purple came along” He goes on to say: ”As soon as metal came along it morphed into the enemy….It fucking killed punk rock…” This clearly contradicts what you are trying to assert, therefore what you have written is your own personal opinion – what we call here Original research, which we don't allow – see WP:OR.
 * It was the Dictators’ bassist Andy Shernoff (not the Ramones) who thinks Led Zeppelin might be a connection between the Ramones and “Communication Breakdown”. Since it was only the opinion of Shernoff and it does not seem to be written about widely by music critics or scholars; it is a minority opinion. To state this in the article is Undue Weight WP:UNDUE. If you can find reliable sources to back up the claim, it can be added back in the body of the article. If you cannot find enough RS’s the edit was Original Research WP:OR.
 * Your adding this content again and again is edit warring WP:EDITWAR, and you could lose your editing privileges if you continue. Please do not call other editors rude or hostile when they are clearly not. Please read WP:NPA (No personal attacks). Comment on content not on editors. Rather, assume good faith WP:AGF.
 * Please self-revert the content you added to the lead, and kindly stop edit warring and use the talk page instead to invite other editors to weigh in and consensus can be reached.
 * I hope this helps demystify things! With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was the Dictators’ bassist Andy Shernoff (not the Ramones) who thinks Led Zeppelin might be a connection between the Ramones and “Communication Breakdown”. Since it was only the opinion of Shernoff and it does not seem to be written about widely by music critics or scholars; it is a minority opinion. To state this in the article is Undue Weight WP:UNDUE. If you can find reliable sources to back up the claim, it can be added back in the body of the article. If you cannot find enough RS’s the edit was Original Research WP:OR.
 * Your adding this content again and again is edit warring WP:EDITWAR, and you could lose your editing privileges if you continue. Please do not call other editors rude or hostile when they are clearly not. Please read WP:NPA (No personal attacks). Comment on content not on editors. Rather, assume good faith WP:AGF.
 * Please self-revert the content you added to the lead, and kindly stop edit warring and use the talk page instead to invite other editors to weigh in and consensus can be reached.
 * I hope this helps demystify things! With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert the content you added to the lead, and kindly stop edit warring and use the talk page instead to invite other editors to weigh in and consensus can be reached.
 * I hope this helps demystify things! With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope this helps demystify things! With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Netherzone - User:AnthonyScottThompson had not notified me of their post, so I was totally unaware of it until your post, which included a "ping".  I think your explanation above is comprehensive and covers the points very well - thanks for that.
 * AnthonyScottThompson - I think your main misunderstanding, is summed up in your opening line "Observable facts do not need references. That is basic in academics" - that may be true in some parts of academia (not the part I was in), but it is not the way Wikipedia works. Verifiability is one of the three principal core content policies, along with neutral point of view, and no original research. WP:Burden makes it clear that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (the bold is in the policy, not my addition) Arguments, such as "Play it. It is it's own reference." which you used in an edit summary, are totally unacceptable, because they totally fail Verifiability and cross the line into what Wikipedia sees as original research. I see your first three edits were in August 2017, then October 2021. Wikipedia has become far stricter on referencing in the intervening four years - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Gents -

The wrong location should have been explained up front. It seemed to flow there and that intro needs help factually but it makes sense that is not where it belongs. Nothing written is a "Lie" so that is ridiculous (and I wish we would stop with the insults). MC5's influence? - probably a lie (or myth at best...more on all of this to come from a Musicology perspective - yes, you can actually hash out influences if you can break down the music). What I wrote is pure musicological logic and likely does deserve more explanation with some references.

I am starting to contribute as a hobby so hopefully you can understand my frustration. Anyone could have moved this to a talk at any time or simply posted why it was being removed. That did not happen so, from where I am, this is still exceedingly rude and none of this followed policy until now. I'm a novice but you guys sound like your vets. Please reflect on this because the way this was handled was clearly inappropriate based on your own advice and how we are to collaboratively conduct ourselves. Every time I added stuff back it was changed. I was not repeatedly adding the same thing and nothing said was a lie. I was flying blind because of the lack of communication and collaboration.

It looks like my post was deleted again with no notes. I would suggest that behavior stop immediately as this has been reported (not to remove anyone but to get this behavior monitored). This is clearly out of step with the collaboration rules.

Original content from SME's has to be allowed. The SME status should be verified - given - but books are often original thought with parts that are not correct. This idea of not allowing SME content relegates Wikipedia to being a series of High School level papers. Don't get me wrong, I think reference are important especially if you have derived a fact from someone else. It is about giving credit; not validation necessarily. I have never heard of reference as validation until now. Frankly, where is this coming from? Do you just run around deleting the posts you find offensive because of a belief system? I don't get it but it is being monitored now so, if this is what is happening, I'm sure it will be stopped.

Thanks for the DP reference. I'm not sure that is being interpreted correctly though. From a musicological perspective, it has to be read in context with what was going on at that time. The reason the Romones were upset is DP's sound with the first two albums of the MK II band is what was making punk popular (along with Zep 1 and II). It was raw, angry and loud. There is zero doubt these songs and albums were a huge influence. It was not Metal but experimental Rock at it's edgiest. The Punk movement was making it a lot more raw and angry but the masses could relate to the sound because it's roots were popular. That "metal turn" happened with the DP MKIII band in 1974. That album is really ground zero for what would become modern Heavy Metal. This happened right as the punk movement was starting so I really get the frustration that quote expresses. It's not completely accurate the way it is stated but the Ramones are not known for scholarly observations. They went from being a spin off of a popular sound to being yesterday's news. The Ramones in particular went from playing Theaters to going back to dive bars and college events in there home town. (I lived in the NYC tri-state area in the 70's and 80's...I watched this happen). You could see the Ramones for free in the early 80's nearly every week they were in the area. I always thought that odd as they were getting plenty of airplay. The UK and EU were another story for them as the movement never stopped there.

I will create a new section to do a musicological exploration of the roll of popular music on Punk Rock and provide ample research. Let's work on this together and please open your minds to facts and musicological logic. Yes, you need to listen to the music on all sides to do this. The music itself is a reference. Saying otherwise is, at this point in our collaboration, a form of denial and ignorance. It is really the ONLY reference needed for musicological analysis. Musicological analysis is not a lie.

Back to the focus of our conversation, the Punk Rock page seems to have unverifiable origin stories. It is not logical the that Punk Rock came from obscurity in Detroit. That makes no sense from a musicological perspective. The origins of all popular music, which Punk Rock is like it or not, typically has it's roots in mimicking other pop music. (Or someone popular bringing something obscure to light like David Bowie with Iggy Pop in NYC - right? - not Detroit?) The only exception, and it's a big study, is Miles Davis creating the Cool Jazz Movement. Kind of Blue kind of came out of no where. It was a very original idea which is exceedingly rare in musical history. Even Ritchie Blackmore and David Bowie - two excessive trend setters - heard something they did somewhere or they fused things together (like the Clash with Punk and Reggae). They just put the polish on it and got it right. A single song or album can create an entire genre. That is what has happened with the Punk Rock sound. The sound is not rooted in obscure bands especially ones like MC5 or it would have never been popular enough to become a genre. The Ramones clearly were influenced by the referenced songs and I really consider the Ramones the basis sound of Punk Rock.

Thanks for the convo and guidance ... greatly appreciated.

Best Regards,

--AnthonyScottThompson (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Anthony, It takes some time to understand the culture and how things work on Wikipedia, I hope you read the links in and my messages. Here's an introduction to WP: Help:Introduction. You can always as a question at the teahouse WP:Teahouse or the Help Desk WP:HELP. Please be advised that we are all volunteers so you might not get an answer immediately, and do bookmark the page.
 * It’s not a good look to play “blame games” or threaten to “report” others simply because you disagree on content or feel slighted. But if you think it will make you feel better, you are free to do so. It’s perplexing that you are accusing others of using the word “lie” or insulting you when they are not; it seems you are the only one using the word "lie" and no one has insulted you. Please assume good faith and read: WP:AGF. The edit summaries explained why your edits were reverted. To view edit summaries for an article, click on “View history.”
 * New content must be backed up by a verifiable, independent reliable source, no matter how knowledgeable one might believe they personally are. See WP:V and [{WP:CITESOURCE]]. Here is a link to our policies & guidelines: WP:RULES, and a short cut to the most important ones regarding content: WP:Nutshell. That you are a SME with a BA degree does not matter here. What DOES matter is that contributions to the encyclopedia are properly referenced to verifiable independent reliable sources. No one gets a “free pass” whether they have a doctorate or are a 13 year old. We are all equals here, which is one of the things that makes Wikipedia a wonderful global community.
 * It would be great if you would consider self-reverting what you added to the lead and instead posting a suggested edit to the article talk page instead. Hope this helps. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * New content must be backed up by a verifiable, independent reliable source, no matter how knowledgeable one might believe they personally are. See WP:V and [{WP:CITESOURCE]]. Here is a link to our policies & guidelines: WP:RULES, and a short cut to the most important ones regarding content: WP:Nutshell. That you are a SME with a BA degree does not matter here. What DOES matter is that contributions to the encyclopedia are properly referenced to verifiable independent reliable sources. No one gets a “free pass” whether they have a doctorate or are a 13 year old. We are all equals here, which is one of the things that makes Wikipedia a wonderful global community.
 * It would be great if you would consider self-reverting what you added to the lead and instead posting a suggested edit to the article talk page instead. Hope this helps. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you would consider self-reverting what you added to the lead and instead posting a suggested edit to the article talk page instead. Hope this helps. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * AnthonyScottThompson Wikipedia does not accept that "The music itself is a reference" nor "It is really the ONLY reference needed for musicological analysis". Wikipedia only accepts information supported by references from published, Independent, reliable sources, (not things that you have written or published yourself). These references must be cited to verify any additions. These are core policies, and not open for discussion or negotiation.


 * Please also read and follow Help:Notifications, so other editors are aware that you have replied to their posts – again it was Netherzone who drew my attention to your post.


 * Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)