Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Concerning the merger with "pop punk (revival)" and construction the new page

Please use the space below to suggest fundamental changes to the article as it is being merged and re-written as decided by the vote on talk:pop punk (revival). Please feel free to make minor edits on the actual article, but for larger issues that would warrant the rewrite of whole sentences or paragraphs, please use this space. Thanx. Xsxex 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• - this was posted by Deathrocker: "Pop punk is a genre and musical term used to describe two different forms of music. It is used to describe 1970s bands such as Buzzcocks[1], the Rezillos[2], the Ramones, Blondie[3], and others. Who most often came from New York City or the United Kingdom." Furthmore, he said: "(if you wish to add to the article, please do, but dont blank sourced info)"

• Deathrocker. Unfortunately your sources reveal very little. The Buzzcocks page actually proves what we decided on the talk:pop punk (revival) discussion. The page clearly says that The Buzzcocks are a punk band that influenced pop punk. Go and read the page you linked to. As for The Rezillos and Blondie (yo those were good photos of Debbie!), they make no mention of "pop punk." The page will be reverted to the way it was before. To say it again, once again, please use this space to discuss anything other than minor edits. Thanks. Xsxex 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Scroll down the page in the Rezillos and Blondie links... it describes Blondie as "Blondie were sheer pop punk perfection" and on the Rezillos link it says of their music "A perfect pure pop punk song", and the Buzzcocks link says that they were "pop punk pioneers". It was decided that the articles were to be merged on that talk page.. but certainly nothing was agreed about eliminating the older bands which are also called "pop punk" all together. Infact if anything it was "agreed" that both different forms of pop punk should be incorporated into this article.... it states how the two are different forms of music, and one is a "term" the other MTV brand is a "genre"... it has sources and all to go along with it, and citation needed tags in appropriate places. - Deathrocker 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly, we already discussed this, the original punk rock bands were the pioneers but they CANT be called pop punk because they are DEFINED as punk rock. SOME of them can acurately be DESCRIBED as pop punk. The sources your have provided all use the term "pop punk" to describe either bands or more often specific songs (as in the case with the usage of "pop punk" on The Rezillos source.) As it seems, a band can only have one DEFINING genre, but many DESCRIPTIVE styles. This distinction between "definition" and "description" was brought to the conversation by Jmabel at the bottom of the talk:pop punk (revival) page. This is a significant distinction and i hope that it is one that you find acceptable. I have used this to reorganize the list of pop punk bands. Let me know if you think this is a step in the right direction. Xsxex 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've provided sources to show how those bands are also described as pop punk, which is what it says in the sentence, if you cared to read it (aswell as the californian pop punk bands, from a genre perspective). If you disagree with it, then please feel free to look for sources proving otherwise, but blanking sourced parts of the article, just because you alone want to eliminate one of the meanings from the article, is a violation of NPOV and a form of vandalism. - Deathrocker 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• You have not read or understood my comments to you. I'll say it again. (Please respond right on this talk page directly below (use a star)) The sources you provided use the term "pop punk" descriptively and not as a definition of the group. This article (which is IN THE PROCESS OF BEING EDITED ... this is not the final version)... will discuss the DEFINITION of pop punk first and then discuss the DESCRIPTIVE qualities of pop punk. Again there will be a section discussing the distinction between the use of "pop punk" as a definition versus a description (both of which are acceptable uses). However there are not two types of "pop punk." Apparantly there are two uses of "pop punk." Xsxex 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• You are totally ruining the article with your POV pushing of these californian poprock bands, and the fanboy esque style which it you are reverting the article to (take a look at how the other genre articles are written, its not NPOV to totally glorify one form of music)... also, there is no reason to remove "citation needed" tags, when you havent found any sources for debatable material.(Such as Nirvana issues, albums sold, etc, etc) I've provided sources as to how these bands are "described" as pop punk .. either find sources proving otherwise or stop vandalising the article please. - Deathrocker 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deathrocker, amazingly you are the one who has changed the article which I am in the process of writing and editing with YOUR POV, which is backed up by sources which, as I have stated here, do not DEFINE those bands as pop punk. AND as I have written here just minutes ago, the article will discuss the original punk bands however these bands should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph (i can see mentioning The Ramones and The Sex Pistols) but other than that, they will be mentioned later in the article, which I have a hard time writing when you keep changing it. In your response, please let me know that you have considered the distinction between the definition and the descriptive qualities of pop punk. Xsxex 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why should they be pushed to far later in the article to suit your POV? the article currently mentions BOTH uses of the term in the opening section, as it should, or else it would be bias infavour of one terms usage. - Deathrocker 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am not trying to suit my point of view, but I am trying to find the common ground in this very controvesial topic. I did read through all the updates that you've made an I see that you are not merely reverting the article, but adding important information. I really want to see your point of view, but I want you to consider mine. Please respond with your take on the idea of "definition" versus "description." Do you think that these different qualities are a significantly distinguished when talking about "pop punk?" Xsxex 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deathrocker, one more thing, if you take a look at the wikipedia pages for The Buzzcocks, The Ramones, The Rezillos, and Blondie. They do not mention the term pop punk as their genres. While you can bring up the inclusion of the "pop punk" in talk pages for each of those article, I would rather see this used as evidence that these groups are fundementally different than a band that would be defined as pop punk such as the prominent ones mentioned at the end of the intraductory paragraph. Again, are you comfortable with this idea of "definition" vs. "description?" Xsxex 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Quoting Deathrocker from above: "Scroll down the page in the Rezillos and Blondie links... it describes Blondie as "Blondie were sheer pop punk perfection" and on the Rezillos link it says of their music "A perfect pure pop punk song", and the Buzzcocks link says that they were "pop punk pioneers."
  • Deathrocker, though I cannot prove this, I would venture to say that these quotes, taken from a fansite, are infact somewhat revisionist, though I would give them the credit to use the term in a descriptive manner. My intuition on the other hand makes me think that these sources refer to pop punk because by using this term, the fansites hope to attract some of the attention that is right now being paid to many of the prominent pop punk artists. Whether this is being done by the artists themselves, their PR, or by fans of said group can be investigated on an individual case. Yet another support for the distinction between the original punk bands and pop punk bands comes from the mouths of the original punk rockers. Steve Diggle said he didn't even know who the members of Green Day were when he was approached by them [4] and John Lydon was quite vitriolic towards Green Day in his comments in which he claimed to be part of the true punk rock culture and said Green Day were wankers [5]. These sentiments on behalf of the original punk rockers is a direct indication that they do not see themselves in the same grouping as Green Day (being at this point probably the most prominent pop punk band, who have also to a certain extent transcended the label pop punk). As we speak I am trying to find the first printing, recording, evidence of the term. If you can be of assistance in this regard it would be quite helpful. As it is, the earliest mention of pop punk that I've found yet seems to be around 1993/1994, however I am somewhat convinced that it must have been used sometime in the late 80s, guessing 1987/88/89. If you can provide evidence to show that the term was used before 87 or so, like say 79-84, than you might be able to make a case for calling some of the original punk bands "pop punk." However to date, I have yet to see any mention of this term prior to 1993. Xsxex 01:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am happy with the article at present. The first paraagraph should certainly mention both uses of the term, otherwise it is biased to one usage.--Switch 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Switch/Deathrocker, let me know what you think of the new version, I plan to continue working it until it is the best it can be. As per your recommendations, I worked it out so the first paragraph mentions both in an appropriate way. Suggestions? Please write them here before any changes are made. Xsxex 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "Definition vs. description" is helpful for readers to understand the differences more, but as Switch says it needs to mention both ways in which the term are used in the first sentence. I've never seen the Sex Pistols, the Clash or the Misfits reffered to as "pop punk" in any understanding of the term however. It seems to be only bands such as Wire, Buzzcocks, the Rezillos, the Ramones, Blondie, etc, etc that the term is sometimes used to describe. - Deathrocker 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deathrocker, ok. Interesting, ok, hmmm. Alright, the only one i would need a source for here is Wire, the others (Rezil,Ramone,Blon) you have sourced, we have those sources. When you say, "etc... etc..." could you be more specific, are there other groups that you can find references for from the original punk/new wave (blondie is new wave) 1975-1980s era NYC/London & other places? Are you into doing that? Also see if you can find specific examples from printed zines/magazines or from official wesbites. The fansites are decent, but even better would be references from these more concrete sources. Let me know if you are able & willing to do this. Xsxex 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm mostly happy with this at the moment. I am certain that the Descendents are generally considered to be the first pop-punk-as-a-genre band, but I can't find a reliable source for it. Lots of amateur stuff, and a lot of pop punk bands named themselves after Descendents songs (most notably All), but I can't source it yet. Still, I'll keep looking. Also worth perhaps mentioning as a pop-punk-as-a-description band is Billy Idol and Generation X. I believe Generation X were the first band from the punk movement to make it onto Top of the Pops, and Punk77, a fairly reliable source, describes them as "poppy punk" with a "solid set of pop punk songs". --Switch 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Descendents more-or-less describe themselves as po-punk on their own website: 'The quintessential DESCENDENTS album, Milo Goes To College, hit local record stores in 1982. Its fusion of catchy melodies with raw, spastic energy (henceforward known as "power pop", "melodic hardcore", or the ever popular "pop punk") caused the Los Angeles Times to write, "perfect for the little guy who was ever called a nerd and never got the girl. The Chain Saw pop combined with earthy humor conveys what is often an inarticulate rage."' --Switch 05:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, if you check Blondie's official MySpace page, the only genre they have themselves described as is "pop punk". [6] - Deathrocker 13:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • WesDods/Switch/Deathrocker and others who have been helping out... things seem to be going along pretty good!... However ((1)) I have some qualms about the structure of the first paragraph which mostly has to do with what seems to be Deathrocker's contention that pop punk somehow describes two different genres, As WesDods has asked we really need some more evidence that, as Deathrocker wrote, "It is also used retrospectively, to describe an unrelated movement which includes some of the 1970s punk bands, who impl(e)mented high elements of 50s and 60s pop influences into their music." ... what needs to be explained is how this is UNRELATED. If this can't be backed up, which I am assuming you will be hard pressed to do, I would recommend you make the change. ((2)) concerning Blondie/Generation X, and all the bands who formed between (approx. 1975-1980, esp. in England/but US too) we need to find HARD SOURCES from those years which describe those bands as "pop punk." If these references cannot be found, than I propose that we attribute the use of the "pop punk" descriptor, in regards to those bands (75-80ish) to RETROACTIVE descriptions, and not as defining the band. ((3)) As for the Descendents, yeah, I am getting more and more confident in thinking of them as the first "pop punk" band in the formal sense... or in other words, more confidence in the ability to assert them as the first band that was defined as "pop punk." I started combing through their press which was amazing, (for one that they had so much of it, its organized, and also Matt Groening reviewed them in 1982, quite incredible!!!, here's the direct link: http://www.descendentsonline.com/archive/press_reviews/ ) OK so that said, near the bottom of the page in (NOMAG-1982, by Bruce Kalbero, the 3rd paragraph), there is this series of sentences:

• • "MEET THE DESCENDENTS: Chainsaw Pop. That's the title of the article (ouch!) ... they've been together for 3 years, Milo has been singer for a year and a half, before that they had a girl singer. They used to be fish-punks, and then they became food-punks. They would really hate being called food-punks. They're not a punk band they insist. They are a pop band and they don't play protest songs. The FAT EP has a lot of songs about food and one fish-song 'Mr. Bass"... Wienerschnitzel" is a 20 second long punk-pop art classic, if Claus Oldenburg wrote a punk song it would be that song. The DESCENDENTS refuse to play it live. They aren't food-punks."

• • Pay special attention to this line: "Wienerschnitzel" is a 20 second long punk-pop art classic, if Cla(e)s Oldenburg wrote a punk song it would be that song." Even though it seems to call them punk-pop, the writer is actually calling them punk-pop art, which follows in the series of, (blank)-punk formula which he uses earlier. Yet this can indirectly be used to support them as a "pop punk" band. Here's how: the writer has brought their music into the context of art with his association with pop art, comparing their song to the works of art of the pop art movement. ((ok, prepare for a stretch))... So by comparing their song to art, he is considering their music as a work of art, pop art, none the less, which is in many ways directly related to the formation of original punk in 1975/1976... (punk used pop as a way of subverting what was pop at the time.. their appropriation of pop [aesthetics], (in the case of The Ramones, Buzzcocks, Rezillos, Blondie), was done for entirely different reasons than any pop musician. In this case, these artists used pop references to critique, to respond, to denounce, to reflect pop culture.... (now, you may say, well yes, but, this had been done before.., In that, you would be correct... however) The Descendents were using pop aesthetics to critique their own lives, and their lives within punk, and punk itself, and that, may i agrue, is the philosophical underpinning of what pop punk is. Finally, to top it off lets review the way he tries to define them, he calls them chainsaw pop, he calls them fish-punk, food-punk, then relates that the band insists they are not a punk band, and that instead they are a pop band, but then he says they wrote a punk-pop art classic. For !!!1982!!!, i'd say this is the closest a writer could have come to pop punk without actually writing it. Thoughts... Xsxex 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2 (gathered from "pop punk (revival)" after merge with pop punk.)

Pop punk is the more commonly used term that punk pop which describes a sub-genre of punk. This sub-genre rejects the punk ethos with more mainstream, melodic music that has a very polished and heavily produced feel. This contrasts with the raw, incredibly fast sound of punk, ska punk and hardcore punk. Punk Pop is a strange swapping of the more general term which should be merged with the pop-punk page.

Dual Definitions

• Pop Punk is a contentious term for a variety of musical artists. The genre can have two or more accepted meanings which, one reason or another, at times seem to contradict each other. In one view, pop punk describes music which is from the punk underground but has pop aesthetics. On the other hand, pop punk describes punk music which has gained a certain level of popularity.

Additionally, the term has changed meanings over time. Whereas it was very commonly found in the pages of MaximumRocknRoll during the ninties, it later was used in the larger music press and mainstream journalists. As a sub-catergory of the Punk subculture, the term also changes as punk culture changes. Punk itsef has had a variety of cultural meanings which ranging from pre-punk rock meanings (such as: adj. inferior, poor health, or n. prostitue, young homosexual, young man, hoodlum, dried wood used for tinder, or a beginner/novice), to post-punk rock cultural perceptions as a tabloid curiosity (1977), a societal disease (1980s), annoying snot-flingers (1990s), and most recently, cute little babies (2000s). With punk culture edging past 30 years, and apparently still full of steam, spinning off subgenres and attracting new devotees, undoubtly the meaning of punk is still being made.

Inter-Note Reference [[7]]

- User:xsxex

Pop punk or punk pop

• Pop punk and punk pop (or pop-punk and punk-pop) should be merged, except on the redirect page for punk pop it should have an explaination such as this: "Punk pop is a term to refer to what is more conventionally know as "Pop Punk." Punk pop or "Punk-Pop" is typcially used more by music journalists and/or people who do not want to make reference to the contentiousness of the term. By flipping the words, the general idea is communicated without instigating any discussion of the ironic nature of pop punk. Henceforth, by doing so, music critics can separate themselves from the culture which suits their aims of journalistic nuetrality."

Inter-Note Reference [[8]] (click "skip advertisement" at the top of the page, can this be avoided?)

- User:xsxex

I have removed this section, as all it did was direct the reader to the disambig page. Isopropyl 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Split off list of bands?

Proposing that we split off list of bands, unless someone objects with a valid reason. Isopropyl 22:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The list is rather long. WesleyDodds 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Isopropyl 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is talk, evidently, or a movement rather to turn lists into categories and to delete the lists, I dont know what you guys think about this but, I dont think list of pop punk bands should be deleted. Thoughts? Xsxex 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Gabba, pop punk tribute band to ABBA and Ramones

The pop punk tribute band to ABBA and The Ramones, Gabba (band) has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.113.247 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Article split

I'm considering splitting the article, its quite clear that there are two different meanings of the term "pop punk", I'm thinking of turning this one into a focus on 1970s original pop-punk movement, ala Buzzcocks and Ramones...

While creating Pop punk revival for the more recent 1990s Californian MTV bands. A similar situation is already inplace with the Post-punk article where they created Post-punk revival to solve it. - Deathrocker 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've split it now... needs some work though. - Deathrocker 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this solves anything. For one, the term "pop punk" seems to be used primarily for 90s and 2000s bands; labeling the Ramones and Buzzcocks pop punk seems like a retroactive labeling. Additionally, "pop punk revival" comes off as a neologism. WesleyDodds 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

origins

Shouldn't we create a stylistics origin section for pop punk. DavidJJJ 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been address in the article now, but it could be more in dpeth, what do you think? Xsxex 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Buzzpop????

just because some guy decided to re-name a genre doesnt mean it should be included in the first sentence... case in point there is no article for "buzzpop" other than a redirect to Pop punk... so whats the point.. THERE IS NO BUZZPOP.. im getting annoyed.. by the way... I WROTE THE ORGINAL ARTICLE in DECEMBER 2004 (((http://bvio.ngic.re.kr/Bvio/index.php/Punk_pop)))... theres been a lot of appropriate additions and corrections and improvements but i dont know whats been going on lately... if anyone wants to write me add a note in my talk page on my user profile... bradley adita aka Xsxex 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but keep in mind no one owns the article. While the merits of the additions are questionable, everyone has the right to contribute. WesleyDodds 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

word yeah i know.. thats why im not changing anything.. and frankly i dont really care.. but i do.. but not enough to really go bonkers or anything... yeah no one owns the article.. but have you ready it lately?? i wouldnt want to own that.. 24.13.194.165 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mothers, fathers, sisters, brother, YO!, so yeah the "Bvio" link that I provided above has been put out of commish. The point is i wrote the skeletal article back then, and it was a big hot heap of hooey, but it provided some structure. User:Painbearer merged the article which i wrote for "punk pop" into this article on June 10th 2005. There has been alot of changes since then. Actually we're on a much better path now, i think. im my humble.... ok. Xsxex 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pop Punk Revival is QUALITATIVE EXCREMENT

Haha this must be some big joke right?? The Ramones were BARELY called punk rock to begin with let alone Pop Punk... from 1974-1977 (until the summer of 77 in london) punk was still a very esotric term... The term "Pop punk" probably was first uttered in the mid to late 80s to describe the music in on the West coast.. The Ramones and many others (as listed in the beginning) were instrumental in the pop punk sound, but this was only realized later. The Ramones were never considered pop punk until the late 80s/ early 90s.. and was reclaimed by bands such as Screeching Weasel. But you have to understand that Screeching Weasel took at least 10 years to become possible after punk (summer of 77). Point being... Pop punk was probably first concieved in the late 80s and broke on to the mainstream in the mid 90s... after which it continued to gain in popularity up to the present. Since the popularity of pop punk has never been obsolete or in serious decline... it makes no sense to speak of a "Pop punk revival." Furthermore I have never heard someone say they are in a pop punk revival band... and i have never heard a band described as a "pop punk revival" group. The author should reconsile these issues and make the appropriate corrections. If you want to spout off, start a zine!!! Xsxex 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• There's a "History of Pop Punk" article published in Guitar World sometime in 2003 I've heard about that someone might want to try and track down as a source. WesleyDodds 09:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• According to GDA the story was printed in the Sept. 2003 issue of Guitar World's Legends. I'll see who's got that around. Maybe the library? Xsxex 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Influences

• Can we get some sources regarding influences from genuine punk bands? Obviously, Green Day are influenced by Buzzcocks, but what about the rest?....

Simple Plan? Good Charlotte? New Found Glory? Yellowcard? Fall Out Boy? The majority of the bands don't seem to be influenced by punk rock at all in their music, but more skate punk stuff like NOFX. - Deathrocker 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Deathrocker again: "Pop punk is a fusion genre describing artists who combine the catchy attributes of some of the original punk rock groups with trends in contemporary pop music." this means that pop punk artists reference the original punk artist (directly, or indirectly via Green Day, via involvement in the punk scene) and combine those references with trends in contemporary pop music, which can also be (Green Day, or it could be the Spice Girls, or it could be anything in pop culture). Thoughts?? Xsxex 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Most of those bands are influence by mid-90s pop punk, primarily Green Day. In turn, Green Day is influenced by a swath of bands that includes Husker Du, The Replacements, The Clash, The Jam, The Ramones, and even Cheap Trick and Van Halen (they used to be big metal/arena rock fans befoe discovering punk rock). WesleyDodds 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, almost forgot they also count Generation X as a major influence. WesleyDodds 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• This should help [9]. It's an article for Spin magazine by Jim DeRogatis about Screeching Weasel. WesleyDodds 10:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wes!!!, That link is awesome!! Great source, evidently published in Spin (magazine) in 2001. Yeah, Jim D-row, is a character around the Chicago scene, him and Greg Kott, are the two main music journalists in town. they do a radio show and used to do a TV show called "Sound Opinions" So yeah this writing is really helpful well from a few points but yeah it mentions that Tom DeLonge sites The Descendents which supports what we've been getting to, which is that The Descendents might have been the first to be defined as pop punk band (see the info about that above, at the bottom of the first topic). ((Quoting the article:)) "That same year, Blink-182 covered "The Girl Next Door" on its first album Buddha. Says guitarist Tom DeLonge, "Screeching Weasel was probably the biggest influence on my songwriting after the Descendents. I absolutely loved that band." ((End Quote)) One more thing, you can see Weasels live performance at the House of Blues on Moral Crux's myspace (Ben's wearing a Moral Crux T-shirt) [10]. ((Scroll down an click in on the youtube link.)). Xsxex 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This section seems to have been archived a little, OK ALOT earlier than it should be, this is current discussions... anyway, so it would seem a very small minority of the popular bands that fall under this label are actually influenced by punk rock (Seemingly just Green Day)... and then the rest (Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Yellowcard) are influenced by other pop "punk" bands (such as Green Day, Screeching Weasel, etc) not genuine punk? - Deathrocker 01:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I did a major cleanup to get closer to Wikipedia standards, but there are still improvements to be made by people who know more about the subject. I re-ordered it so it's organized better and easier to read, deleted a lot of point of view, deleted repetitive content, deleted content that isn't relevant to the topic and fixed up sentence structure, among other improvements.Spylab 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Skylab, said at the top of the page, This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Again, please use the talk page before you make any sweeping edits. The article does need to be closer to wikipedia standards, but I think in this case you might have deleted too much information. Please make the revert yourself and bring up specific points on the talk page. Xsxex 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did use the talk page. You just responded to it. If you think I deleted anything that is necessary to understand the topic, go ahead and re-add it. I only deleted content I believe is irrelevant to the subject of pop punk, biased or incorrect. I see you made a lot of recent changes to the article too, and don't see your explanations for what you did. Perhaps you should lead by example. Spylab 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The changes were reflective of the material which was deleted by you and others, I was surprised to see even Deathrocker reverted the article after your deletions. If you want to discuss it on a point by point case thats cool and there is a section at the top of this talk page to do so. I'd recommend going through the article and making a list of points. However, the article will be reverted back to it's prior edit. I don't see why categories "must" be listed at the bottom of the page. However when I revert I will display both ways. If you want to contest it, right it with one of your points. Also, was it your intention to delete references? Please be more careful when you edit. Thanks. Xsxex 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You should look around at other Wikpedia articles and familiarize yourself how things are done around here. Categories are always at the bottom where they're meant to be, not as links in "See also" lists. As for justifying every single of my deletes, point by point, that's backwards, unrealistic, and not the norm on Wikipedia. The onus should be more on the person adding new content, which you haven't done. It's better to have no content at all, than content that is innacurate, biased redundent, irrelevant or confusing. As for the references, they were not proper references as per Wikipedia standards. References are supposed to prove a point with a reputable source, not just link to related information. Again, you should look at other articles and the guidlines in the Wikipedia help sections. Spylab 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Point taken, however, you forgot the BLARING SIGN at the top of the page which says, THIS ARTICLE IS ACTIVELY BEING DISCUSSED. Instead of engaging in discussion, you merely made changes as you saw fit, which is not how things are done on wikipedia. Instead, you should bring up each point if it is more than a minor edit. response? Xsxex 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)