Talk:Punk ideologies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed To do List

These might be deleted when done.

• A section on civil rights, anti-racism, feminism, classism and so on.
• Sections for different authoritarian institutions (school, police, the work place, etc.)
• A section on capitalism and corporations.
• Many more lyric links
• A section comparing punk ideology with other cultural ideologies like underground hip-hop
• A section on punk and academia
• Articles on other punk ideologies (Straight edge, Oi, etc.). A section for links to these other ideologies now exists.
• A section on the the movements and ideologies that influenced punk (Futurism, Dadaism, Situationist, Anarchism, etc.)
• A section on anti-capitalism
• A section on Consumerism
• Figure out if a link to this page should be on the isms page. Should it be called Anarcho-punkism or would that be stupid.
• Some relevant pictures on the page.
• Section on alienation
• Copy edit: among other things, there are not supposed to be links in headings.

Rationale

This section explains the rationale behind descisions the community had made concerning this article.

Article Title

This article was originally titled Anarcho-punk ideology, but it was decided that the prefix Anarcho- was to restrictive because punk ideology embraces more that just anarchist theories and practices. See the discussion below titled Problem with the Article's Name.

Why the Contents of this Page are not Part of the Anarcho-punk Page

Anarcho-punk is a subgenre of punk. Anarcho-punk has a culture, history, and ideology (among other things) attributed to it. Each of these represents a distinct concept. A person may have no accociation with the Anarcho-punk culture or its history but may still subscribe to many of the values of Anarcho-punk ideology just from being exposed to Anarcho-punk lyrics sheets or an influencial punk. Additionally, ideas may be discussed on both the Anarcho-punk page and also on this page but this page should discuss them in a way that explains them in terms of punk ideology. For examples, the DIY ethic on this page is written in a way that explains how DIY is seen in ideological terms. This is what distingushes the two pages.

to that end, I removed the Class War picture because that narrows down "punk ideology" to a particular group and dogma that I don't believe typifies the punk scene(s). *Ria777* 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)*Ria777**Ria777* 22:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Problem with the Article's Name

What's up w/ all the Bad Religion and Dead Kennedys? Maybe I'm being too narrow but I don't think either one of those qualifies as anarcho-punk (not that I dislike them -- they're just not anarcho-punk). I understand that they may fit into the ideology given on this page (at least before BR sold out). Maybe the page title should be "punk ideology" and that would be more inclusive.

I hate to go through and erase so much of another person's work just because I don't feel they fit the category, so I'm asking if there's any sort of consensus on this issue? millerc 08:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, the title "anarcho-punk ideology" made me expect something more along the lines of Profane Existance, not just general punk ideology. millerc 08:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The terminology for this was very diffficult. I wanted to write about an ideology that I saw was somewhat consistent among many people in the punk community. The closest adjective this ideology I could come up with was "Anarcho-punk". Calling the article "punk ideology" would have been easier but that would have meant that the article would be inclusive of OI punk ideology, straight edge ideology, anti-racisist skinhead ideology, neo-nazi ideology, and probably some I haven't considered yet. I would like to see these seperate ideologies on different pages - it would be to hard to cram them all into one page, especially when they contradict each other in so many areas. The fact that the page has so much BR and DK stuff on it is really just because those were the first bands I started to create lyric links to. I assumed that other people would add links from other bands and I have been meaning to get around to it. Anyway, since there are difficulties with the name of the article, I hope we can come to a conclusion about a more appropriate name because I think the article represents a valid entry in Wikipedia. It just needs a better name. TimMony 16:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah... Anarcho-punk is a specific form of punk, so how about anarchist punk ideology. I think BR and DK would then fit, while neo-nazis, straight edge, etc wouldn't since they're not anarchist. millerc 00:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. That's as good as anything I have come up with. Let's let it sit for about a week and see what people reading this thread think. Thanks for your help. TimMony 06:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about anarchist ideology in punk or the more lengthy anarchist ideology in the punk scene, for the record, i think "Anarcho-punkism" sounds stupid ;) FrancisTyers 01:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if the word anarchist or anarcho- should be used in the title at all. The ideas mentioned in the article came from people in the punk movement who might but may not consider themselves anarchists. I'm starting to lean towards millerc's original suggestion that it should be called punk ideology. I think when most informed people hear the word punk they don't think of a specialized form of punk like skinhead, straight edge, or even anarchists; though they may understand that these concepts are associated with punk in certain respects. I think they are more likely to think of a typical punk as a free thinking, anti-authoritarian, "progressive", and, of course, angry thinker. If no one objects to this counter aurgument to my original counter argument, then I will change the title to punk ideology and update all the pages that link to it. TimMony 05:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I see what you mean, after all, from the Propagandhi page: Known to visibly cringe when referred to as anything containing the words "anarcho-" or "punks" ;) -- FrancisTyers 21:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there's going to be a page on punk ideology, shouldn't it be a comparative look at various common philosophical themes in the punk community? I can tell you that "anarcho-punks" are not necessarily a huge majority. Shouldn't, then, this article reflect that? I think that, while this is a good start, I'm pretty convinced that its still slanted and needs more balance.--Reverend Distopia 21:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

At a quick read, I find a lot to disagree with here. There are (even post-1980 or post-1984) plenty of apolitical bands with a punk sound; conversely, there were some very political punk bands well before that, the most obvious example being the Clash. For that matter, Patti Smith's politics, while less articulated, are in this territory. And what about the Minutemen? Punk didn't suddenly get political at one point in its history, nor are its politics uniform. This seems to describe the ideology of a particular segment of the punk movement: it's a fair description of the views dominating Maximum Rock'n'roll, but even in that context it would hardly characterize Mykel Board. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your right, the history sections is inaccurate and makes to many generalizations. As far as your thoughts on the ideology exponded by the article, I again agree. Alot of punk is apolitical, no doubt. The article was originally named Anarcho-punk ideology (see above). This was seen as too restrictive so I changed it to Punk ideology. Now it would appear that this is not restrictive enough for the article. Do you have any suggestions to correct these problems. I'm currently at a loss. TimMony 22:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Anarchist punk ideology" is certainly closer to the mark. I can't see any problem with that as the focus (and title) of an article; there could be an indication of the degree to which other punks do or do not buy into various aspects of that ideology. I would say that anarchist punks are precisely who have a well-developed ideology connected to the whole punk scene; the only other punk ideologues I can think of are the very marginal right-wing white-power types. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. I was listening to the music from the beginning, and this article seems to want to impose a general worldview on a pop music phenomenon. While some bought into the Stalinist claptrap the Clash were pushing, many of us found Strummer strident and unconvincing, even more of the people I knew just didn't care, it was all beer and fighting for them. It was a fashion for most people, a fashion of disgust for and a satire of commercialism for some, but there wasn't an overwhelming sense of political consciousness that this article wants to imply. Fire Star 18:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Punks"

I don't know how I feel about references to "Punks" within this article. Yes, there are people who think of themselves as punks. There are also lots of people who subscribe to many aspects of punk ideology without referring to themselves as being "a punk" or "punks". I believe that it may be possible to consider oneself "a member of the/my/a punk-rock community" or even "punk" without considering oneself "a punk." Seeing as how important respect for self-identity is within punk culture, this is something we're going to have to deal with. Basically, there's a huge spectrum of people who adhere to various aspects of Punk ideology as part of their lifestyle, and I think it's our responsibility to illuminate that spectrum as much as possible.Dwiki 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, thats why I wrote "The rest of this article will use the word "Punk" to refer to punk ideology or to a person who espouses Punk ideology." at the top of the article. However, I understand your concern. I would like to go through the article and replace all references to Punk with something more accurate but I'm not sure what it would be. Appearntly it can be done because

your contribution to the Selling out section didn't rely on the lable at all. When I get some some I will look into rewording the article.

Origins

This page should also take a close look at what lead into punk and a look at the first punks: Richard Hell and the Voidoids, The Dead Boys, The Ramones, and in England: The Sex Pistols etc. It should probably also mention the influence of such bands/people as Iggy Pop, Suicide with Alan Suicide (Alan Vega), MC5, Patti Smith, The New York Dolls, and many others. This is an excellent start, but we need to address origins as well. Also, the article only mentions a few bands, there are many missing, particularly brit bands. It'll be some work, and I'll help. It needs to be done to create a comprehensive article on punk ideology. (unsigned, but it's User:Sekoh 13 March 2005)

I would really enjoy reading about how the early pioneers contributed to punk ideology. I would have a hard time doing it myself because I really don't understand how those bands contributed to punk thought. The list of bands isn't very complete for sure. Although I'm surprised you don't see alot of brit bands, at lease we have Subhumans, Crass, Citizen Fish, and Oi Polloi (or are they Scottish). TimMony 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are a lot more Brit bands out there. Also, I forgot to mention The Dead Boys in my list of pre-punks. I might add that section myself after I finish reading the book From the Velvets to the Voidoids: a Pre-punk history for a Post-punk world It's an amazing resource and I reccommend it highly. I discovered many bands from this book, and learned much about those I already listened too.--Kent 20:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) One of the central problems i have with this article is that it focuses on this left-wing Punk, which is as far as i am concerned, a perversion of the original Punk, which was very much a time & place thing that had nothing to do with politics. Today, Punk is best viewed in conjunction with the larger mass of historical re-enactment youth subcultures as it shares aspects with all of them. The next problem i have with the article is that Punk has NO ideology, so there can't be a definition of such a thing. What is being described in this piece is definitely a group of real trends within Punk, but they are not a broader "Punk Ideology" in any way. --Sean P. Aaberg 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)--Sean P. Aaberg 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[--~~~~-Sean P. Aaberg]]

I can't believe they would actually attempt to make a list of Punk bands without naming one of the most important founding father bands of Punk: NOFX Who the hell wrote that article anyway? Da Dutchman 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way were NOFX a "founding father" of punk? They weren't in any way, at all. I don't know all that much about them, but it seems to me that they were formed in 1983 or something (ie. after most of the innovation of the sound and idealogy of punk were formed to basicly what it is today.) I know their early work has an American Hardcore sound (sans the authenticity or aesthetic angst of what I consider to be true american hardcore), but for the most part, NOFX wrote bad sub-par songs that sounded like hardcore but made into a goofy, adolescent joke. Despite the fact they do have some good songs that could be up to the standard of true punk, most songs are lyricly goofy and incredibly pointless. From an idealogical point of view (in terms of punk idealogy), NOFX are if anything, the antithesis to what punk is and sets out to do. NOFX's goal seems to be to cheapen punk to a goofy, adolescent, humour ridden, laff-and-a-harf, instead of a serious subculture against mainstream society. There is a lot of variety in idealogy in punk, but NOFX's idealogy stands out as extremely mainstream and inane in comparison. NOFX version of punk idealogy is (superficial elements aside) that of it being simply another mainstream subculture. How can you even think what you said? Listen to a band such as CRASS, The Exploited or Minor Threat (or basicly anything else that is punk) and compare the two. If you need more convincing, what about the way the basicly spawned the pop-punk movement as we know it today. NOFX may have some similarities to punk but idealogy is probably the least punk thing about NOFX. gyuew

I agree. xxbassbugxx

Foreign Language Punk

I added a couple of tracks by French band "Heyoka", I can provide a translation of the lyrics if required, but I was thinking, maybe this should go in a separate section or article? Although... punk ideology is pretty international... What do other people think? FrancisTyers 06:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the band are significant—I've never heard of them, but I couldn't name a French-language punk more recent that Plastique Bertrand—they certainly would deserve an article of their own. Assuming that you are a Francophone, it probably makes the most sense to write on first in the French Wikipedia, then to write one in English -- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done FrancisTyers 20:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism Template

I moved it from the bottom to the top (where I think it looks slightly less shit), but does this really belong here? FrancisTyers 20:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some people say this page should be called anarcho-punk idealogy or anarchist punk ideology. Others say that is to restrictive and that it should be called punk ideology. Personally I favor punk ideology and I don't mind the template being here because there is a clear relationship to punk thought and anarchism. I wont put it back however; I will let others decided.TimMony 21:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it's punk ideology it definitely needs to be expanded to take in a much wider range of views. The article as it currently stands describes something more akin to a subset of punk ideology, which ranges from hard left to hard right and everything in between. --Delirium 04:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be such a bad thing if there were a master article, i.e., this one, with links to articles on specific "schools of thought" as it were. In other words, a discussion on "anarcho-punk", "straight edge", "communist", "working class union types (a la The Strike), etc. This article could be used to disseminate the differences and commonalities. Reverend Distopia 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking alot lately about re-writing the article in just that form. I've become very unhappy with this article because, as so many have pointed out, it is biased. I still think that punk is primarily a leftist, anarchist movement. However, encyclopedic articles obviously can't over-represent things this way. I would say that each school be given a section of roughly the same size (depending only on what needs to be said). I would also remove all the songs except for a small list to illustrate key points. TimMony 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the list of songs be on a seperate article?

I just deleted entire sections which were duplicated (pretty much the entire article), I suggest that the list of songs should be moved to a seperate article. --Slark 01:17, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up, I didn't even notice. I'm happy with the songs in the the article but I wouldn't complain if they were somewhere else.TimMony 07:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Generalizations

This article as it is makes a whole lot of generalizations about the punk subculture and is heavily US/UK scene oriented. Now, there are a whole lot of punk groups worldwide, some subscribe to certain ideologies, some don't. E.g. Nazi punks certainly don't fit this description, while Sharp skinheads would to an extent. Also, there is a whole lot of bands that simply sing about beer or destructive anarchy, etc.

For example, I can think of Los Fastidios, a self proclaimed street punk/oi bend from Italy, who take a strong socialist stand, pro-gay rights, etc. I can also think of Serbian Direktori (no article, yet) who are nationalists, anti-communist, etc.

Does it make sense to keep this article as it is, or would it be better to try and recognize different punk sub-groups and just attempt to describe them? If the article stays as it is, all it can really say is: "well, punks around the globe have different views on everything, but they all consider themselves to be free-thinkers". --Dejan Čabrilo 16:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Concur. - FrancisTyers 16:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. should I take this as "yes, we should try to reorganize this article"? :) --Dejan Čabrilo 04:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly :) - FrancisTyers 18:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a bit of overgeneralization the article, but I feel a lot of the attributes of punk ideology are true to certain extents. However, I feel it is presented as being a rigid model or theory with few exceptions, when that really isn't the case. Even in the late 70's punk ideology wasn't particularly set; for some bands it didn't extend beyond the ideas of musical freedom or provocatism. Some thought an ideology was useless or negative. Even when talking about the American punk scene in the 1980s, regional differences and personal interpretations are largely what lead to the development of the alternative rock scene. Once again I must say that a lot of the basic information presented are correct and widely applicable, but the article could stand to be broadened. WesleyDodds 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank the contributor at 86.132.94.26 for his additions, especially the Critisism secion. Nicely done. TimMony 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome

It was about time someone stepped in and did it, as no one ever thought of it. I'm pleased to be of service. (Chris Henniker 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Have some songs been deleted from the lists?

Is it just me or have some songs (namely 'Walking Contradiction' by Green Day) been deleted from the lists of punk songs? If so, is there a good reason for this or is it just 'purists' deleting what they believe not to be punk? Germs 19:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a good reason or not is debatable. Green Day did sell out, and these days a lot of people don't associate them with punk. If you think the song should be up there though, add it. (No, I wasn't the one that deleted any songs.) --Ven 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"a lot of people don't associate them with punk"

This statement is highly biased. How are Green day not associated with punk? the problem with this article is that it neglects punk ideology once it has become mainstream and fails to take into account the wide variety of punk bands who do not subscribe to a particular ideology, but still make protest songs amongst more banally themed songs, which is surely what green day do?

It's no more biased than saying they are punk. Everyone has their own idea of what is and isn't punk and no one will ever agree. For the record, I don't think green day are punk and they definetely should not be used as an example of punk ideology. Especially when the page specifically talks about how not selling out is important to punk ideology. The Ungovernable Force 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Green Day may have sold out but they have made a political statement with their album American Idiot, at least they are protesting against something unlike the other coporate bands who sing their pointless crud. Sure selling out is bad and sure the bands that sell out use the excuse 'we wanted to reach a larger audience' but I say if it gets the mainstream to start being politically aware then let them spread the ideas!!!!! So what if Green Day sold out they are still a good band and made a statment! Being punk doesnt mean you cant be mainstream it means your going against the grain, stepping out of bounds and that's exactly what Green Day did they protested what they thought was wrong like the war for instance.

Whoever wrote the following statement clearly doesn't understand what it takes to sell out. Green Day, among many others, proves that they have strayed far from their shallow foundation of punk ideology to an overplayed concept of political awareness. they are played on mtv, and mtv knows that nothing is gonna change now that a bunch of 10 year old boys dont like George Bush. When money is waved in a bands face, things like record producers, corporate managers, royalties, IMAGE, retirement, and interviews/publicity, dont seem like so much of a problem. Any room left for a political agenda is wiped out with the distraction of stardom. At that point your not going against the grain, your simply a movie star playing the part of someone going against the grain.

Antimilitarism

I made two edits (so far) to this topic. I think these edits made it less POV.

1) I removed indie kids from this discussion because I don't see how indie kids figure into a discussion on punk rock. Though there are crossovers, indie rock is its own genre of music, and, other than a DIY ethic shared, I don't see there being definate philosophic crossovers that warrent their being included here. I almost removed skinheads for the same reason, but it has been argued that some skins are punks (though not all) so I'll leave it for the time being.

2)I changed "not all punks (or skinheads) are anarchists" to "pacifists" because not all anarchists are pacifists. They may all be anti-militaristic, though I'm betting you could find some self-proclaimed anarchists who aren't (look at all the youth bearing Che Guevarra T-shirts) but I know for a fact (ex. Oi Polloi) that there are anarchist punks who are not pacifists. This heading was clearly influenced by its author's POV.

--Reverend Distopia 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Environmentalism headline

Who quoted this without attributing its source? Bad form! I'm not going to delete it because I'd like to give the author an opportunity to source this. However, if it isn't fixed, it needs to be deleted.

"While there will always be different opinions under the punk banner, the prominent environmental philosophy among punks closely resembles 'Deep Ecology'"*

Let's be a little bit more proffessional here please.Reverend Distopia 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This can be attributed to Craig O'Hara's book The Philosophy of Punk. TimMony 04:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been a couple months since I read that, but I do know it talks about deep ecology being important, so I will back you up on that citation. The Ungovernable Force 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the quote, this is nonsense! Punk has nothing to do with Deep Ecology, that's a load of bollocks. That Craig O'Hara book is the book version of this article & has more to do with trying to create the author's dream of Punk than the reality of Punk. Anyhow, an interesting article would be about the left's saddling of & direction of Punk (mostly through MRR in the USA & through various communist & socialist groups in the UK) away from the more real version of Punk as posited by the Ramones. --Sean P. Aaberg 06:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The variety of attributions here is not very wide.

I'm concerned. There are maybe ten bands being used as sources over and over and over again. Epitaph records is way over represented here. While there are mentions of all of the other genres of punk, when it comes to philosophy, Bad Religion and Dead Kenedys (both of whom I love so don't jump down my throat) are referenced to death. While I'd say that both bands could be considered important, they are hardly the end all when it comes to points of view in the punk rock community. This needs work!--Reverend Distopia 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion. There is no way for this article to be from a NPOV. Any list of ethics of a group that has no fomal code is inheantly og. research and non-NPOV.Tombride 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose that someone could edit it from a sociological/cultural studies standpoint and keep out personal POV? Russia Moore 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

: yes this is what the page needs to be, more a history of punk ideology than a generalisation of differing ideologies

JIP | Talk 07:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Punk

In the two sections I have looked at "Punk" and "Punk Ideology" the History of Punk section has been incredibly lacking. I appreciate that this is probably the most complex things to add, but it needs to be added to the "To do list". My main concern is that within the last 10-20 years the term "punk" has been co-opped by many, MANY bands that many people more associate with Pop. This is something that has always bugged the hell out of me, and very few people discuss it. I even listened to an hour long interview with Iggy Pop on NPR to hear if it would be brought up, and sadly it wasn't. Possibly this would be more of an opinion on the current and recent history of the movement, I dunno.

As an aside, I would also consider removing, or at least re-stating the section on veganism and whatnot. This applies to a relatively small sub-section of the ideology, and although each statement is followed by "some punks" I think there should at least be a statement that says "and some punks could give less of a damn about animals"

PS this is my first post in wikipedia

I want to start an article called History of punk, because there really isn't enough room to cover that topic in the current Punk article or the Punk ideology article. If you want to contribute some content about pop and punk, the right place for it would be the 'Mainstream and popular culture]] section near the bottom of the Punk article Ecto 03:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement about the popization of punk to some extent, but really it's been going on ever since the beginning. As for veganism/vegetarianism, my own personal experience is that quite a lot of punks are vegetarian or vegan, and many of the ones who aren't were at one time or are at least aware of the issue. Of course there are plenty of punks (especially the ones who are more in it for music than for the culture as a whole) who don't give a damn about animals (or people for that matter either). That's why this is a general overview and even says that not all of these descriptions will fit for all punks. I know for sure though that a lot of (if not most) anarcho-punks, crusties and sXers are vegetarian and that many bands and individual leaders within the punk scene have written songs, cookbooks, zines, etc about the issue. A quick list off the top of my head includes the Subhumans, Crass, Conflict, Aus-Rotten, MDC, Oi Polloi, Propagandhi, and plenty others. Vegetarianism is definitely more common within punk culture than mainstream culture and that should be mentioned. The Ungovernable Force 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Of course there are plenty of punks (especially the ones who are more in it for music than for the culture as a whole) who don't give a damn about animals (or people for that matter either). " I think that that is a very generalized statement. The one part of this page I found to be flawless (which is a hell of a difficul statement with wikipedia) was the section on non-conformity. Because of my beliefs in that (and my opinion that it is the core of punk ideology and the origin of punk music), I don't think that it is fair to generalize about punk ideology in any other ways. Nonetheless, I guess something has to be put onto the page, so I will not beat a dead horse. I am a punk who wears jeans and a T-shirt, is saving up for an Armani suit, and I eat venison, and anyone who tells me that that I am a poser needs to consider their needs for me to conform to their own intolerant view.

Oi! racist?

Ok, allmusic says Skrewdriver are Oi!.[1] Also, allmusic's blurb on the Oi! genre says that

Oi! acquired a bad reputation when it was adopted by racist skinheads aligned with the neo-fascist National Front organization. Most bands (and skinheads) took pains to distance themselves from this unsavory element, especially after a number of violent incidents at live gigs; however, a few genuine white-supremacist bands (most notoriously Skrewdriver) were enough to give Oi! a stigma which it never completely shed.[2]

The article on Oi! here on wikipedia mentions that some of the groups were racist, but that others weren't. The ADL's website, although not the best source for music info, does talk about racist Oi! music (with no mention of the largely non-racist nature unfortunately), showing that "reliable sources" as wikipedia would classify them, view Oi! as at least partially racist. Here is a horrible article on nazi music (and I really do mean horrible, this person doesn't know much other than really superficial crap) that implies Oi! is racist (look in the blue box to the right), going so far as to say it was popularized by Skrewdriver (which is complete BS, I know, but again, shows that "reliable sources" as defined by wikipedia consider Oi!, or at least some elements of it racist). [3] Saying that there weren't racist elements to the Oi! scene is a no true Scotsman fallacy at best, and historical revisionism at worst. Anyway, I'm readding the bit about racism, but I'm clarifying it more, and it should be pretty clear that most Oi! bands are not racist, but that Oi! at least has that reputation. Hopefully we can use this as a compromise (I actually like it more, since I do think Oi! gets a worse name than it should get). The Ungovernable Force 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• None of the bands associated with the actual Oi! scene were racist. The first lineup of Skrewdriver, which can be considered a precurser to Oi!, wasn't racist. When Ian Stuart reformed the band with a white power lineup, he distanced the band from the Oi! scene because he saw it as having a socialist agenda. The other white power bands, like Brutal Attack and No Remorse, did the same thing. Yes, many white power skins liked Oi!, but that doesn't mean the bands were racist. A lot of white power skins also liked ska and 2-Tone, but that doesn't mean those bands are racist either. Those sources you define as "reliable" are anything but. Sure, you can say Oi! "had a reputation for being racist" even though it wasn't, but why continue to spread misinformation?Spylab 12:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I said myself that they weren't very good sources, but they are what wikipedia policy would consider reliable (which is a fact I tried to emphasize). I know that the original Skrewdriver weren't racist, but their music, even the later stuff, is usually classified as Oi!, rightly or wrongly. I think your current slight rewrite is good, so I have no objections. I'm not presenting misinformation though--it is a fact that many "reliable sources" as well as non-reliable ones consider Oi! to be racist. I even pointed out that it was mistakenly called racist due to media sensationalism, but it is important to state the fact that it is viewed as racist by many, if only to show that it is not entirely (or even mostly) the case. The Ungovernable Force 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"When Ian Stuart reformed the band with a white power lineup, he distanced the band from the Oi! scene because he saw it as having a socialist agenda." That's blatantly not true. The album "Boots & Braces-Voice of Britain", which contains songs with (very) racist lyrics is Oi!. Ian Stuart distanced himself from Oi! only in the late 80's-early 90's, when he started making non-Oi! songs in an attempt to draw more non-skinhead audience. Mitsos 10:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ian Stuart and the other Rock Against Communism bands were, in fact separated from the Oi! scene, which is a different thing from the Oi! sound. Skrewdriver was never part of the official Oi! scene that was made up of bands under the wing of Garry Bushell, and Skrewdriver never appeared on any Oi! compilation albums. They never played concerts with any of the main Oi! bands either. Here's a quote by Ian Stuart: "We’ve never been an Oi! band. I would say we were a rock band."[4] Spylab 11:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Ian Stuart said that, skinhead nation is not a reliable source. Skrewdriver was never in an Oi! compilation album, that's true. But I know they played gigs with the 4-Skins and maybe other bands. Mitsos 11:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• You can doubt all you want, but I really don't think George Marshall put words in Ian Stuart's mouth. As for the photo you linked to, nice try, but but 4-Skins and Skrewdriver never played a concert together. The caption in the link is incorrect. That is a photo of Skrewdriver by itself, with Paul Swain in the lineup. Swain used to be a member of 4-Skins before joining Skrewdriver. He was no longer a member of 4-Skins by the time he joined Skrewdriver. Spylab 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, now you are lying. Paul Swain was always a member of 4-Skins, and he was never a member of Skrewdriver. List of former Skrewdriver members:

• Ian Stuart
• Phil Walmsley
• Ronnie Hartley
• Kev McKay
• John "Grinny" Grinton
• Glen Jones
• Martin Smith
• Mark French
• Geoff Williams
• Mark Neeson
• Mark Sutherland
• Adam Douglas
• Murray Holmes

Paul Swain is nowhere. See also The 4-Skins. His name is on "members" section, not the "former members" one. Mitsos 12:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are wrong again.[5] And as the 4-Skins article shows, Swain was not "always a member of 4-Skins." He was only in the final lineup. The only member of 4-Skins who was in the band from beginning to end was Hoxton Tom. Also, all 4-skins members are former members because the band broke up. Spylab 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does Diamond in the Dust says that Paul Swain was a member of Skrewdriver? Also, I consider Skinhead Nation to be a unreliabe source because it is not neutral and is constantly trying to "prove" that Oi! isn't racist. For example, in the first paragraph of chapter you linked to, "One Law for Them" (btw, the song "One Law for Them" contains lyrics such as "we 've been warned for rivers of blood", a reference to the Rivers of Blood speech), Skinhead is saying that Oi! is similar to rap!!!!! Mitsos 13:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Again you are wrong. Paul Swain was only in 4-Skins from 1983 to 1984, not from the beginning of the band (1979)
2. Here is the text that shows that Swain was in Skrewdriver after 4-Skins broke up:

"Not long after the release of the No Surrender LP, Skrewdriver was dogged with yet more line up changes with Murray Holmes leaving the band. Lacking a bassist Steve filled in and Paul Swain joined the boys. Swainy was the ex-axeman with the Oi! band the 4 Skins, and was no stranger to the Nationalist cause himself."[6]

1. The lyrical reference to the Rivers of Blood speech doesn't mean the band was racist. Here's a link to a page including an email written by Hoxton Tom: [7].
2. The quote comparing Oi! to gangster rap is not by Marshall. Here is the text:

"Gangsta rap is black Oi!. That’s the best comparison. It’s the same working class ghetto mentality - against the world and fuck everybody." So says Lol Pryor, former manager of The Business, one time proprietor of Syndicate Records and Link Records...

Spylab 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

About Marshall: I copied and pasted his name while I thought that I had copied Skinhead Nation. Sorry about that. I mean that Skinhead Nation is trying to connect Oi! with rap. The 4-Skins were not racist (I never claimed that), but they weren't anti-racist or leftist either. They were a patriotic band. You are right about Paul Swain being a member of the 4-Skins from 1983 to 1984. I still don't think Swain was in Skrewdriver. I 'll check that. Mitsos 13:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk ideology's relationship the ideologies of other youth movements.

I looked at the "to do" list and I've noticed that it suggested that there should be a section on the relationship between punk ideologies and those of other youth movements. It would be a good idea to see one. (Chris Henniker 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

I don't think it should have been deleted. Although it could have used some work (like most of the rest of the article), I wish Spylab hadn't gotten rid of it, especially when it had just been put up. Do others agree? The Ungovernable Force 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be a great idea if someone put it back and expanded it. (Chris Henniker 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

Almost everything in that section was point of view or speculation. I could go through it sentence by sentence, but if you take out everything that isn't a verifiable fact (and stuff that's irrelevant to punk), then there would be almost nothing left. Spylab 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Basic Punk Ideology

Instead of trying to build an all encompassing article about what "punks" (I use quotes to respect the earlier discussion about titles)do and don't believe, this article would be better if it just talked about the basic elements that most "punks" would consider punk. For instance, environmentalism while closely associated with some punks and punk groups, isn't really an integral element of punk ideology. Maybe some discussion about what the basic elements of punk are?Y.Pestis 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

-I deleted the last two external links to books in the article because they were dead links so they had to go.Y.Pestis 09:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

—"The problem with trying to identify a common set of ideological tenets for punk is that there is no positive ideal underpinning either the music or the wider social movement. From its beginnings punk was simply anti-everything. All the first wave bands - and other artists such as poets, fashion designers etc. - stated from the position that society was flawed in all its elements and should be destroyed. So whether it was the Sex Pistols decrying the queen, the Clash asking for a riot, or the Buzzcocks describing anti-romantic sexuality, society remained the enemy. In the 30 years since then, punks have focussed on all manner of established positions - politics, the environment, discrimination,animal welfare, the moral majority and a myriad of others - taking a minority view on each. This is the crux of the difficulty. A collection of antis does not make a pro. And indeed as time passes new punks take an anti position to old punks." User: Chcookley 14:26, 18 September 2006 (BST)

What A Load of Crap

First of all this article tries to lump far too many unrelated and over generalized topics into one thing. Of course some of it made sense to someone at some time, but by now its just a festering pile of half baked, ill written, poory formatted, badly wikified junk. To try to write a meta article encompasing so many unrelated and conflicting things just does not make any sense at all.

That's a good point. A point that has been made numerious times on this talk page. What is your stragagy for correcting this? TimMony 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A possible suggestion?

Subdivide it into liberal, socialist, communist, anarcho-punk, etc. There is no one punk ideology, as it's so fragmented. Chris Henniker 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another suggestion is to call it Punk ideologies, to emphasize the fact that there is no single all-encompassing ideology.Spylab 01:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I'd go with that! Chris Henniker 02:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)