Jump to content

Talk:Punk subculture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 24 September 2021 (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Sociology (60/60 articles) Configured as topic=Society). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punk subculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Punk subculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Punk subculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge DIY Ethic into Punk subculture. I think that the content in the DIY Ethic article can easily be explained in the context of Punk Culture, and the Punk Subculture article is of a reasonable size that the merging of DIY Ethic will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. I think the information that would be suited best in the Punk Subculture article are the Punk Culture, Music, and the Skateboarding and cycling sections because the page already has a large part of the information. I also think the information would fit well there because the page is filled out with items within the Subculture that could use the supplemental information.

When thinking about this page and it’s function it’s hard to put your finger on it. It doesn’t feel like an Ethics page that discusses the moral of those that use DIY Ethic. If this page were to be truly about people being “self-sufficient” and the morals that people that identify as this type of person use, I think it would be a different story. I also think this a suitable merger because there is constant reference to the DIY Ethic which I think gives it a clearer understanding than the actual DIY Ethic page.

@Ilovetopaint and TheUnbeholden: Thoughts on this proposed merger? Lostxxjustina (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

There appears to be an ongoing edit war over the insertion of this edit. Please discuss your issues here rather than in edit summaries and come to a consensus about what form the article should take. Woody (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be confused for edit warring. I did actively change, reword, and improved the quality of the information, based on the commentary in the reverts, so that it would meet Wikipedia standards, which the last edit actually did, but was still reverted. It was an incremental effort to include important information. It should be improved; not entirely deleted from the article. I can only presume it was removed because there is either a personal interest in removing mention of this specific conflict in punk subculture, or from a personal insistence on winning an edit war they want to start; I don't know. The information is exactly the kind of information a wikipedia article about a sociopolitical subculture should at least mention. In either case, the information should not be confused for commentary, as pointing out the existence of a belief in a subculture, and the reasons for its presence in that subculture, isn't commentary. And that information certainly shouldn't be deleted. Rephrasing and reformatting, certainly would be helpful. But information about the ideology of the subculture, and this manifestation of that ideology, are important to an article that is meant to be informative about an ideologically-based subculture. Unfortunately, there are some individuals interested in removing information about this specific internal conflict (i.e. right-wing individuals attempting to, in effect, sweep it under the rug). The last revert mistakenly labelled the information commentary, and dismissed it, under the premise that the multiple direct examples were "relatively minor". Which is both not really true, given the individuals involved are prominent and influential figures in the punk music scene, and also not a legitimate reason to delete information. Even if they were minor examples, minor examples would still be valid sources to illustrate the presence of the phenomenon. They were also called "relatively" minor, which is a tenuous reason to delete something. But, tersely put, the push against right-wing ideology, within punk subculture is an integral feature of punk subculture and the punk identity, and a manifestation of its original ethos. That's significant, and is something that warrants explaining in this article. The main problem is that there is no sort of centralized punk authority to directly quote for this stance, so, although there is an incredibly vast wealth of individual, isolated, anecdotal examples of this sentiment being expressed in the wild, among punks, those examples can't be used to cite the phenomenon (despite the fact they are the phenomenon). Given what punk is, its origins, and that fact it arose as a subculture from explicitly anti-conservative (non-conformity, anti-establishment, anti-corporate, and anti-authoritarian, and so on) ideological tenets, this push against considering conservatives legitimately punk is widespread; it isn't difficult to find the sentiment often shared among punk social circles. In fact, in the same section of the article, this information about the adherence to authenticity as a core part of the punk identity is pointed out:
"The issue of authenticity is important in the punk subculture—the pejorative term 'poseur' is applied to those who associate with punk and adopt its stylistic attributes but are deemed not to share or understand the underlying values or philosophy."
And when those underlying values and philosophy are in opposition to right-wing ones, that results in the commonly expressed stance that right-wing individuals can't be punk, because of that contradiction. The opposition to right-wing ideology within punk is a manifestation of that ideal of authenticity, and it is even seen in some instances of actual edit wars on punk-related Wikipedia pages in the past. People have made petty edits back and forth over this exact issue. Explaining that it exists is not commentary. Unfortunately, others intend to edit war and remove what is critical information about a socio-politically founded subculture, which I don't really understand, but I changed the the paragraph each time, to meet Wikipedia standards, rather than straight up edit-warring and repeatedly removing information from an article. Really, this article should have some protection put on it. But I digress. Punk is fundamentally ideological. The phenomenon of ideological dispute, and of legitimacy, is a direct result of what that ideology is, and given how widespread the push against considering right-wing punks a par of the culture is, that ongoing conflict warrants inclusion. It's exactly the type of information that wikipedia articles should include, to be informative, especially given how fundamentally ideological the punk subculture is. It's a culturally significant phenomenon, and a part of the punk subculture (again, see "poseur"). The prevalence of that stance against considering conservatives a part of the subculture is something that needs to be outlined in the article. How that information is expressed is up to others that are better able to word things than I am. But it's significant and informative, and, because punk's core ideologies oppose specific other ideologies, that conflict is of note. It's something to include. How to include it is the question. Maybe some citation needed qualifiers would help in the meantime. --2604:6000:A883:A700:5C12:E7A3:D785:F18 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was removed because it was not supported by reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the required standards for inclusion. The sources you gave were for specific events, not for the underlying thrust of your text. No-one is necessarily claiming that your edits are untrue - just that they need to be supported by reliable sources, and not simply reflect one individual's personal opinion. (It would also help if you made your comments a little less wordy.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was actually supported by reliable sources. The sources used were sources already used in other wikipedia articles, that already meet the required standards for inclusion as reputable and sufficient and reliable sources. Also, the mindset of trying to dismiss those sources for being "specific events" isn't in line with Wikipedia's standards at all, as specific events are often used to illustrate examples of specific, complex, or nuanced phenomena, or even, really, any phenomena in general. Providing prominent examples of exactly the phenomenon being explained is entirely within Wikipedia's standards for articles. It also shouldn't be confused for personal opinion to include an explanation of the existence of this ideological conflict in punk subculture, in the article. Within punk subculture, that ideological conflict is prevalent. Highlighting its existence, and explaining what the reasoning that leads to it is, is not itself opinion, nor is it a statement taking either side. Stating that many punks do not consider it possible to be right-wing and punk at the same time isn't a statement that that stance is true; it's explaining an internal conflict significant to the subculture; one which is rooted in its founational ideology. For example, the act of explaining that punk subculture is rooted in anti-authoritarianism is not itself the expression of an anti-authoritarian opinion, nor a statement that anti-authoritarianism is itself correct. It's a phenomenon in the subculture of significance that should be in the article. How it's explained may remain to be seen. But wholly deleting that information is unconstructive. The information is neither opinion, nor commentary. It is informing readers of something rooted in the core of the subculture. It's worth mentioning, especially given the severity of the conflict (e.g. other people edit-warring in the past over exactly this issue; explaining this ideological conflict is important). Including the phenomenon in the article needs to stop being confused for opinion. And, like I said, rephrasing and reformatting is welcome, and would be helpful, and I'm encouraging it. We need constructive editing; not wholesale removal of information. If you think it needs to be less wordy, then editing the wordiness would help to improve the quality of the article. Deleting it is not. --2604:6000:A883:A700:5C12:E7A3:D785:F18 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here provided two sources. This one reports a protest against Trump. This one is slightly better, but it only reports the comments of one person, Jello Biafra. Neither of those sources provide sufficient basis for the claims in the rest of your edit that:

The fact that such beliefs oppose the original ethos of the punk subculture, and its history, has led to internal conflicts in the punk scene, and an active push against such views being considered part of punk subculture at all. Individuals that hold such views are widely not accepted by the punk subculture, and it is common for many in the punk subculture to actively denounce individuals that hold such views, considering them to be disrespectful to the subculture's core values and to its history. This conflict has resulted in a commonly held stance, within the overall punk scene, that it isn't possible to be both conservative or right wing and punk at the same time, believing them to be incompatable and mutually exclusive, and considering them to be only using the fashion and visual aesthetics of punk, without truly being a part of the punk subculture.

That appears to be your own personal opinion. Sources may exist that justify making those claims, in a neutral way, but you haven't provided them, and therefore the claims can't be included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, it provided three. The first is protest - from a prominent punk band - against conservatives, racism, and fascism. The second source reports both the comments of Jello Biafra (in the video of the incident) and of Tim Brennan (in the interview itself). Please check the sources before dismissing them. The third cited the usage of "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" as an anti-fascism anthem in the punk scene, which, again, illustrates that specific ideological opposition in the punk subculture, and the article on the song itself shows a further link between the song and left-wing political interests (i.e. the anti-racism symbol taken from it). Also, both of those sources do provide sufficient evidence for the information given. They're direct examples from very prominent figures in the punk subculture. They aren't negligible incidents. They are a direct result of the stance in the punk scene that is being explained. And again, how something is explained being the issue is not reason to remove information from an article. If it needs to be explained better, then please edit articles constructively, rather than erasing sections of articles. But also, no, the quote you pulled - in no way - appears to be my own personal opinion. It really doesn't. I didn't insert my own opinion on this conflict. My personal opinions about punk are drastically different that you probably presume. This isn't about me at all. I'm not important; useful information is important.
Getting back to the actual article, the ideologies of the punk subculture are explained in the article. They are identifiable values. The subculture is specifically sociopolitical in origin and in ethos. Now, ideologies exist which happen to oppose what those ideologies of punk are. A consequence of that is that some individuals and groups (the examples that were given) happen to involve those opposed ideologies. Pointing out this conflict between the ideologies still isn't any person's personal opinion. The conflict within the punk scene that arises from this conflict of ideological values is also not my opinion. Prominent examples were even given. Many examples exist, but specific, notable examples were cited. And those example cited are entirely in-line with Wikipedia's standards for sources of such a phenomenon, especially given the prominence of the figures involved to the punk scene. And, again, the sources are reliable. They're sources already used in other Wikipedia articles, because they are reputable. And, again, the issue of that opposition to those ideologies also relates to the importance of authenticity to the punk subculture, which is also pointed out in the article, i.e. the notion of poseurs, and I don't see you deleting the section pointing out that phenomenon. In fact, that section explaining the notion of poseurs isn't cited at all. The importance of the ideology and of the authenticity to the values that gave rise to the punk subculture is of significance to the punk identity. That still isn't a personal opinion; it's an extant part of the subculture. If the paragraph needed rephrasing to avoid sounding like opinion, then rewording it would be a constructive edit to make. Now, the notion of there being an incompatibility with and mutual exclusivity to punk is a consequence of that very value of ideological authenticity, and of what punk subculture's values are (which, again, are explained in the article, and are values that are in opposition to right-wing values). That difference between the two branches of ideology still isn't any person's personal opinion. Ideologies can be opposed. These ones in question happen to be. The ideologies inherent to the punk subculture are specific, and are ones in opposition to conservative values (such as capitalist interest, notions of conformity, of preservation of establishment, etc.). Punks telling nazis they very literally are "not welcome" in their scene is a direct example of the push against right-wing ideology within punk subculture. Now, if your issue is with the claim that this conflict is common within the subculture, that's very obviously difficult to quantify, but so is the prevalence of the notion of poseurs, in very much the same way. That in no way is valid reason to entirely delete a section explaining this issue. What sources can be given should be used to show it existence. It is a complicated issue, to be sure, but none of it is my personal opinion, and, in each edit, I increasingly rephrased it to further avoid any potential misinterpretation that it might be opinion, rather than simply an explanation of this phenomenon in punk culture. The idea that explaining that these facts simply exist must be an individual's personal opinion is showing that there's probably some miscommunication happening here. Tersely, sometimes articles about social and political topics involve explaining views held by groups. That doesn't mean the individual that wrote that those views exist holds them. If your issue is that there aren't enough examples of the phenomenon, then an effort to provide more examples might help.
Look. Again: Pointing out this ideological conflict's existence, and the reasoning that leads to it is not equivalent to espousing those values and needs to stop being confused for it. This isn't my personal opinion being inserted into an article. It's a conflict in punk subculture stemming from what that subculture's core values are. It's significant and insightful information to have present. Sources do exist that directly illustrate the information given, in a neutral way, and they have been provided. The fact that they are expressing punk views doesn't make them unreliable sources for punk views. They're neutral evidence of punk views, and - again - of prominent figures in the punk scene. You've removed them for reasoning that isn't in line with Wikipedia's standards. You first removed it solely for it being unsourced. That was fair enough, but it was the only reason given, so sources were provided. You then removed it for the sources being "relatively minor". That is an arbitrary and personal distinction, and is not reflective of Wikipedia standards, and does not make the sources negligible. It also was untrue, as they were events of noteworthy attention in media, and by prominent figures in the punk music subculture, in the public eye. They weren't relatively minor, given the scope of the article itself being punk subculture. The examples given are significant and direct examples of that ideological conflict, and of the push against welcoming right-wing ideology into punk. You then moved the goalpost further, using the reasoning that they were "specific examples" to dismiss them, which is not a valid reason to delete information from a Wikipedia article. And you changed to claiming they weren't reliable sources. But they were reliable, and are sources already used in other articles. Then you moved the goalpost even further, claiming they don't provide sufficient basis for the information to be included in the article, even though they actually do, because they are direct examples of it (and even involve direct and unambiguous statements directly telling people expressing those ideologies they aren't welcome). You had criticism that it was too wordy, and in general, made some fair points that would mean it might need tweaking, but not a valid reason to entirely erase information about the matter. What was said isn't opinion of personal position, but is the highlighting of a position of the punk subculture. There is a difference. Claiming that explanations of nuanced ideological information and internal conflicts are somebody's opinion doesn't make that the case. And claiming that sources aren't sufficient doesn't make that true. This is a prominent feature of punk subculture, because of what punk subculture is. If it needs to be explained better, then please explain it better. If "citation needed" should be added, then please include that. I can cite dozens of anecdotal examples, and could point to punk social circles, where the sentiment is regularly circulated, but those aren't Wikipedia-standard. But the existence of this conflict is very much exactly the kind of thing that should be in the article. It is a question of how to present it; not of whether to present it.
If you have suggestions on how to best write the paragraph, or examples of the types of sources for such a phenomenon would be acceptable citation, I'm all ears. I'm only trying to include meaningful and beneficial information. I understand it may be nuanced, because it's founded in a subculture's ideological values. But entirely removing this information isn't beneficial, nor is repeated goalpost-moving and edit-warring with the goal of removing information. --2604:6000:A883:A700:5C12:E7A3:D785:F18 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still fail to get the fundamental point. I suggest you read WP:V - "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." There are many other guidelines that you need to follow in editing, like WP:RS. And, obviously, be aware of WP:TLDR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't failed to get the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately, the point you're trying to make is inapplicable to what you're trying to apply it to, which has been pointed out to you several times now. The sources are reliable and the information is verifiable. How it is phrased may still be an issue. The information itself is not. And again, you've kept trying to use a goalpost-moving tactic to edit-war, to keep information removed from an article, which is not constructive. I haven't missed any of the points you've brought up. You've brought up several. Some were legitimate. Some were not. I've responded to each of those points, directly, and it's been pointed out to you why nearly all of them aren't valid reasons to remove the information in its entirety from the article. The valid points you made, I corrected. Outside of the initial lack of sources, which was corrected, the reasons you gave afterward are almost entirely based on personal opinion on the quality of the information, rather than being actual Wikipedia standards (e.g. dismissing "specific examples", and insisting that they're "relatively minor" despite the fact they aren't at all minor, within the scope of the article's topic). At this point, you're simply being vague and not giving any legitimate reasons for the information to be absent. What was in the paragraph was not the belief or experience of an editor. You keep making that mistake. I don't know where the miscommunication is happening, but explaining views held by a group, informationally, is not beliefs or experienced of an editor. And the information is verifiable. Meaningful, reliable, significant examples were provided for all aspects of the information, and the crux of the information (that punk ideology centers around ideologies which are ideologies that are in opposition to right-wing ideologies) is supported by corollary information in the article that explains what the ideologies of punk are. That part is factual and it's confirmed by the article. It seems to be either that idea that you're stuck on, or the idea that this ideological conflict results in the push against right-wing ideologies within punk subculture. But that is also verifiable, and the sources given are reliable and meet Wikipedia standards. Nothing about the information that was presented violates the guidelines that you're pointing out, except arguably that it was too wordy, which - again - only would mean it would need rewording; not deletion. At this point, you're now being very vague and generally opposed to the information, rather than actually constructively giving any legitimate reasons for why the information on the phenomenon of this ideological conflict in punk subculture should be absent.
If it's a question of whether the information is opinion, it isn't. That's been explained. Writing about a group's beliefs and stances is not itself opinion. If it's an issue of whether the ideologies are in opposition, they are shown to be, by the article. Tenets of the punk philosophy entail mutual aid, humanitarianism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-corporatism, anti-war, decolonization, anti-conservatism, anti-gentrification, anti-racism, anti-sexism, gender equality, racial equality, health rights, civil rights, animal rights, disability rights, and non-conformity. These are values that are in opposition to right-wing ideologies. They're the core values of the subculture. This opposition, and subsequent confliction of ideologies is factual information, not based in anybody's opinion. Some ideologies are in opposition. This conflict is an example of that. If it's an issue of whether or not this conflict has resulted in the phenomenon of individuals that hold right-wing ideology being not considered punk, and a push against accepting them, then, again, sources of direct examples of incidents resulting from that sentiment - and that sentiment being unambiguously stated by prominent figures in the punk scene - were given. The evidence is meaningful, reliable, and verifiable, and substantive insight into the phenomenon. It's a phenomenon of a type - and of a subculture - for which an ideal source isn't easy - again, there's no concrete, centralized punk authority to make statements on behalf of the subculture to cite - but meaningful sources that meet Wikipedia's standards do exist. If it is a question of the quality of the sources, again, they are reliable and verifiable, in line with Wikipedia's standards, as sources to use as citation. They are sources already used elsewhere, on other pages, having long been approved elsewhere as meeting the necessary standards for verifiability and reliability. They don't conflict with Wikipedia's standards. I'm familiar with them. Simply claiming they aren't sufficient, without having a definite qualifier beyond that claim, as to what disqualifies them as sufficient sources is not constructive, is tautological, and not valid input. If it is a question of if how strong the evidence is for the sources to be evidence of the phenomenon, which is the stance you seem to be taking, then that is nebulous, and not really helpful. The specific examples are manifestations of the ideological position described, and the specific statements involved in all three (the usage in the subculture for the latter), are messages directly of the sentiment that right-wing ideology is not welcomed by punks. That complaint, by the way is not one that has to do with actual Wikipedia standards, but is your own personal opinion. Criticisms of the sources being relatively minor is opinion-based, and it is an opinion that doesn't match the scope of the article's topic; context matters. The context of the article, and the context of the sources are aligned. And the complaint that they're specific examples, again, doesn't have any bearing on whether they work as sources at all. Yes, it is difficult to find Wikipedia-standard sources for this phenomenon. But they do exist, and were used. More would help. Each point you've made, I have addressed very directly, and tried to do so thoroughly, to explain this issue, because it is a complicated and nuanced issue. --2604:6000:A883:A700:5C12:E7A3:D785:F18 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


"Tenets of the punk philosophy entail mutual aid, humanitarianism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-corporatism, anti-war, decolonization, anti-conservatism, anti-gentrification, anti-racism, anti-sexism, gender equality, racial equality, health rights, civil rights, animal rights, disability rights, and non-conformity. These are values that are in opposition to right-wing ideologies."
Your definition of "right-wing" is quite warped. Literally the only thing you listed that could be argued to be innately left-wing and opposed to right-wing ideology is "health rights", though even that depends on the form of health rights one is talking about. You ignore the fact that Martin Luther King was actually a Republican and his philosophy was staunchly opposed to left-wing collectivism and would put him squarely on the right of today's political spectrum. You also ignore that many right-wing figures from history, such as Vladimir Nabokov, marched in the Civil Rights marches. Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, a decidedly right-wing ideology, was explicitly anti-racist and considered racism an enemy of individualism. Lead singer of the British punk band The Sex Pistols, Johnny Rotten, recently declared his support of President Trump as a "punk president", and many of Donald Trump's supporters supported him because they perceived him, rightly or wrongly, to be an anti-establishment president (an easy conclusion to draw, seen as how almost the entire establishment government, media and academia openly despised him as president).
You also ignore that the paragraph preceding yours lists individual freedom, individual liberty, anti-collectivism and anti-government among the core tenets of punk. All four of these values are associated today squarely with right-wing politics and ideology. That paragraph actually perfectly describes Ben Shapiro, a staunch right-winger who, incidentally, is also Jewish and overtly anti-Nazi.
Racial-equality, gender-equality, anti-racism, anti-sexism, animal rights, disability rights, anti-war, anti-corporatism, humanitarian aid and non-conformity have nothing to do with the political spectrum - you find these tenets across the spectrum, and I could give you countless examples but I'd be here all day (look at how many giant international corporations are promoting left-wing values and anti-capitalist economics, not to mention the left-wing politicians launching drone strikes in the Middle-East etc). Also, the 3 "sources" you give are simply 3 examples of people under the same misconception you're under that conservativism and/or right-wing politics are synonymous with Nazism. Instead of providing sources making the same mistake you're making - referring to Nazi values as right-wing values - you should be providing sources showing that these values are right-wing values in the first place. Literally none of the right-wingers I'm familiar with believe in Nazi values.
Right-wing ideology concerns rugged-individualism, individual rights over group rights, personal responsibility, limited government and capitalism as the best economic system. All of these values are explicitly anti-Nazi and you will not find a self-proclaimed Nazi who identifies with them. You conveniently ignore that "punk" as described in the wikipedia article is anti-collectivist. Collectivism is a specifically left-wing tenet, and anti-collectivism is usually associated with right-wing ideology. The Wikipedia page later explains how punk, as a counter to the mainstream, is a constantly evolving subculture - as the mainstream evolves and changes so must punk to counter it. In recent years "liberal" and left-wing values have become regarded by many as the dominant culture and, as such, "conservative" and right-wing values are now "punk" by definition. This has led both to life-long punks adopting a more traditionally "conservative" style as well as, perhaps paradoxically, conservatives and right-wingers adopting a punk style. This is a separate and totally unrelated concept to neo-Nazis appropriating punk culture, which is indeed a very real thing. However, I feel like your contribution conflates, either accidentally or deliberately, the two issues together.
You sound like someone who identifies strongly with left-wing politics and you have an extremely skewed perception and understanding of what "right-wing" actually means. Like many on the Left today you seem to think "right-wing" is synonymous with "Nazi". Again, ignoring the fact the Nazis of Nazi Germany were staunch Socialists, Goebbels himself was a staunch left-winger who hated right-wing values, and Hitler himself claimed he hated the entire political spectrum, left and right etc. I'm trying to not make assumptions about you but you really do sound like one of these paranoiacs who actually believe the absurd notion that all right-wingers, conservatives and people who vote Republican are Nazis. There's a reason the Alt-Right are called the Alt-Right: "Alt" means "Alternative". The fact that all the racists on the right are confined to the "alternative" branch should tell you something.
You seem to be unaware that the political spectrum is actually part of the political compass, and you've gotten it into your head that "authoritarianism" is placed on the right of the spectrum, and anti-authoritarianism squarely on the left. But authoritarianism exists on both sides of the spectrum, as does anti-authoritarianism (as does racism, sexism and nationalism, for that matter). When the only form of authoritarian things you're familiar with are from the political "right", then it's easy to mistake authoritarianism for an innately right-wing concept. In Eastern Bloc countries, however, authoritarianism is widely considered to be left-wing, because the people there lived under the Soviet Union. Individualists, rebels and anti-authoritarianists in Soviet Russia would be considered right-wing by today's standard.
The opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism. Most libertarians are also anti-collectivists. This would put libertarianism, by today's standard, squarely in the "punk" ball park. Most libertarians today are right-wing libertarians, but there are also left-wing libertarians. The point is, there are left-wing and right-wing versions of libertarians and, thus, it stands to reason there are left-wing and right-wing versions of punk. But the idea that punk is explicitly left-wing and anti-right-wing is absurd - there are just as many left-wing tenets, such as collectivism, that punk is opposed to. Where I grew up, the north-east of England, punk is and always was considered a right-wing subculture. It doesn't help that in 2016 there was a wide push on the Left to malign Donald Trump and, by extension, all conservatives and right-wingers, as some sort of "white-supremacist", a movement the band Green Day got swept up in (Green Day's lack of knowledge on the subject is evidenced by the title of their video where they called Donald Trump both a "KKK" and a "Fascist" - two groups that historically loathe and oppose each other, despite sharing some common enemies.)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you genuinely believe in what you're saying and are not just a left-wing activist deliberately and dishonestly trying to demonize right-wingers as Nazis by posting false information. Therefore, I suggest you read some books on the subject that actually explain the differences between left-wing, right-wing, authoritarianism and libertarianism etc. Michael Malice - a staunch Anarchist, anti-Conservative and anti-Communist - is a Russian Jewish American and expert on North Korea, and he has written some good books on the subject from neither a right-wing nor a left-wing perspective.
Your edits on the actual wikipedia page would actually be perfectly correct if instead of using the term "right-wing" you used "Nazi" and/or "Fascist". The problem is that you think Nazism and Fascism are innately right-wing, and you're using the term as though it's a synonym for Nazism and Fascism, which it is not. "Far-right" would be a better term to use, but even that ignores that these extremist values exist on the far-left and the far-right (speak to any elderly Polish people and they will tell you that Fascism and Communism are the same thing, and will use the words interchangeably).
As such, I've edited your contribution and changed each instance of "right-wing" to "fascist" and/or "Nazi". It's simply inaccurate to say that punk is ideologically opposed to right-wing ideology. It just isn't. The problem is your definition of "right-wing." If "right-wing" simply meant "Nazi" then everything you said would be correct. But it doesn't. Right-wing encompasses a range of political and philosophical views, many of which oppose each other, and it's arguable whether Nazi values find their home there at all. You are correct, however, that Nazi ideology - actual Nazi ideology - is ideologically opposed to punk, and so Nazis dressing as punk and claiming to be punk are appropriating the punk aesthetic dishonestly or ignorantly, and so I have not deleted your paragraph as a whole because it has a lot of merit in pointing this out. The exact same thing is also true of Communist groups like Antifa, who idolize the Soviet Union and Stalin yet dress in punk-style clothes - when in reality the Soviet Union and Stalin were adamantly opposed to punk culture and aesthetic. Des22z (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I do not have any "personal opinion" on the content of your edit. I am simply trying to encourage you to understand how Wikipedia works. Apologies for missing the third of your sources, but that doesn't affect the argument. All three of your sources are single examples. They. Cannot. Be. Put. Together. To. Make. The. Case. That. You. Want. To. Make. See WP:SYNTHESIS. They may be used in other articles about specific bands, and I'm sure are reliable in that sense, but not to make a general case about the politics of punk subculture. That needs reliable, preferably academic, sources about the politics of punk subculture as a whole. I'm sure such sources exist but it is up to you, not me or any other editor, to find them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: OK, I've now trimmed the text to remove the part that is not supported by the cited sources. I've also trimmed some of the unnecessary words from what remains. Let that be an end to it. (And I haven't even mentioned Johnny Ramone.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I'm now getting the sense that the issue was more about the causal link between the reason for the phenomenon and the manifestation of the phenomenon. I'll hope for additional sources in the future to sufficiently explain that connection. Thank you for including the issue in the article as best it can be, currently. --2604:6000:A883:A700:5C12:E7A3:D785:F18 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punk_subculture&oldid=1046166977"