User talk:Jcleary

Welcome!

Hello, Jcleary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Punk

Read your comments on Mushroom's talk page - I totally agree. Punk Rock's home, as we know it, is the UK, without question.

The trouble is Punk means something completely different in the States - it was born out of the hippy movement in San Francisco and as such most 'Punk Rockers' of the day in the States went around with long hair and embracing hippy values. It's obviously still the view in America, one only needs to listen to Sandi Thom's recent song, "I wish I was a punk rocker (with flowers in my hair)" - not many Punks that I knew of in London in the 70s went around with flowers in their hair !!

I think there should be re-classification to the entry on Punk, and at the very least a section on English Punk vs USA Punk. In my view, two different movements.

Anyway, good luck in getting the bias redressed !

Jellis2000 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex Pistols Were The First Punk Band

Thanks for picking up the gauntlet on the Ramones issue. (etc.)... your original comments here

Thanks. I genuinely don't think the American punks are attempting to screw the UK/Europeans, but I genuinely do think they are completely and utterly misinformed. Luckily, I was there when punk happened in the UK, and I am still sensible enough to (like you) relate the actual facts to the way things "appeared at the time". It's really odd, you never imagine anyone is gonna question the obvious truth until they do - and when they do, it's like a bolt out of the blue, you suddenly have to justify your entire existence and attitude. Somehow, I think some of these USA editors feel the same way. It's up to us all to argue the toss and cite our positions (I could cite more than I have done with official "Wikipedia-approved"-style quotes, but haven't the time right now I'm afraid, sorry... maybe soon...).

I do sympathise about what you say about separate UK/USA punk articles - what I think is the problem is the question of origins - seems a big deal to us all, especially since I know for a fact UK punk had nothing to do with USA punk in the beginning, and I'm sure the USA guys feel that US punk had no influence from the UK at the beginning also. Both outlooks have validity, but in some dumbass article called "Punk Rock" no one is ever gonna find agreement, and it all degenerates into something that (UK) punk was totally opposed to - boring old farts and their opinions.

In the context of Wikipedia, I feel sure the only real answer is separate articles for the origins of UK and USA punk - seems the only way to get both viewpoints aired without a clash within a single article - but when such a thing happens, we'll undoubtedly get complaints from (e.g.) the Aussies, other Europeans, etc. It's why I've held off pretty much these last six months or so. UK punk is a massive interest of mine (I pretty much singlehandedly saved Punk Pathetique from the somewhat Nazi-esque deletion process coz it was stuck in the midst of ignorant WP contributors) - hopefully soon I'll get the time to fix up some of this ahistorical WP nonsense in the Punk Rock article too. To be honest, I'm waiting until someone suggests separate articles. How this is a "featured article" is utterly beyond me. To me, it utterly sucks as a featured article, and I wouldn't even waste my time editing it, because all the edits we make of existing non-cited claims are bound to be immediately reverted by irate Americans.

But stick in as many verifiable citations as you can, and KUTGW mate - although I am personally biding my time on this particular article, I am watching a whole bunch of related ones in the meantime - and we've all gotta stick together on this issue. Wikipedia's meant to "last for 100 years"... I don't remember them stipulating some dumbass USA-centric POV within those 100 years, but with the Punk Rock article at least, that seems to be what we're getting. If the Ramones article has errors (I can't be bothered to look at it in detail TBH, but at first glance it seems to be full of un-cited crap) then feel free to fix 'em up... After all, we're all here to fix all of this crap up. :-) --DaveG12345 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]