Talk:Skinhead/Archive 1

Jesus Skins

So why arent the jesus skins mentioned? http://www.jesusskins.de http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4-vGNr6m4M&mode=related&search= Shows that christians can shave as well ;) 212.17.87.133 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Offshoots and Revivals

'Skinheads with even shorter hair and less emphasis on traditional styles grew in numbers and grabbed media attention, mostly as a result of their involvement with football hooliganism.' This is not how I remember it. This sentence needs a citation I think.Bkpip 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Old definition

1.(singular) Somebody whose hair is too short or whose head is shaved, a baldheaded man.

2.(plural) A group of usually young men who use a hairless head as a symbol of upheaval, racism or anarchy and are occasionally aggressive and hostile.

Surely we can do better. First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please don't treat it as one. My main complaint about the above, though, isn't that it's short--it's that, in order to be made into something useful, it's going to have to be totally rewritten. "Too short"? And no one is called a skinhead just for being baldheaded. The second sentence is just too brief to be able to be accurate. Besides, the article should reside at skinhead... --LMS

Just be sure to watch the POV and use of "in-words" etc... M1shawhan

The Selecter?

The Selector are a ska revivalist band, not to mention that all of them are black (seems a bit ironic to list them on the "skinhead" page)

• What's ironic about it?Spylab 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• FYI, The band spelled its name Selecter, not Selector.

1. You need to work on your understanding of the word ironic. 2. Half the skinheads I knew back in the day, before the look became dominated by neo-nazis, were black. If you actually read the article you'll see that early skinhead culture was heavily influenced by black music and styles. 3. I was one of those early 80's skinheads, and revivalist ska was listened to just as much as early ska and northern soul. 4. Don't confuse being a true skinhead with the rock listening, neo-nazis who hijacked the name.Bkpip 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

My friend says he is a "Neo-nazi punk." Is there a different between a skinhead and a "neo-nazi punk?"

...yes

I'm sorry, but your friend is stupid, and you are too if you have relationships with nazi. --Aishe 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very, very stupid. --Me

Major Re-write

I'm doing a major re-write of the Skinhead page. I've watched it flounder for quite some time and it certainly hasn't gotten any better or any more encyclopaedic. Speaking as someone familiar with the movement, I'm disappointed by the way this article is going, so I'll take it upon myself to give (or at least attempt to give) an infomative, NPOV makeover. Cheers. vudu 17:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I rolled it back because I liked the older version better.

Your rewrite was inconsistent (e.g. first and second paragraph: originated in Jamaica/UK) and makes it seem that the majority of skinheads are nazis. And the "braces" section was just wrong.

--zeno 18:33, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The older version is terrible, period. It's not encyclopaedic and completely POV. You'll also need to explain to me how I make it seem that the majority of skins are Nazi's (quoting from my rewrite): Fueled by sensationalist television, skinheads were inaccurately stereotyped a mindless, violent, and racist AND Traditional (or Trads) ? This group closely identifies itself with the original skinhead movement, maintaining working class pride and a dislike for the ?ruling class?. Non-racist and largely apolitical. This group is the largest sect of the subculture.

Did you even read the article? And you'll need to clarify your statement about braces being wrong. I have no idea what you're talking about. I only rewrote the article to give it a better starting point and to eliminate the POV.vudu 19:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anyone who watches this article: please take a look at my rewrite and give me some feedback. Surely we can do better than what we presently have. Thanks. vudu 20:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Vudu- I quite liked the original edit once it had had some POV attention, but i liked your edit as well- you gave some quite indepth insights around the 'braces' issue. I was always a punk myself so am not especially married to this article one way or the other, my only concerns are that skinheads arn't just portrayed as mindless pro-facsist boneheads, and that their historical antecendents and context are presented fairly and accurately, some of the o(anon) edits were a bit POV and enthusiastic to say the least (which is OK as I think skins in general always got a bad press). In short, your edit is OK by me, but could do with some tidying up, try using bullet points instead of big gaps, etc... Cheers quercus robur 00:52, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback quercus. I was very much the punk myself, tho I dated a Chelsea for awhile. I guess I'm not seeing the article I wrote as portraying skins as mindless boneheads, could you tell me what in the article might give that impression? I agree that skins have largely gotten a raw deal in the press, tho they are a rowdy lot. Unfortunately, boneheads are considered part of the skinhead subculture by most. I attempt to be fair and to work from a NPOV. Being American, I have an Americanized view of the world, so any specifics you could give would be wonderful.

I guess one of my main concerns is that the article was reverted 10 minutes after it was posted. Given the fact that English is not zeno's first language, I hardly think he had time to do much more than skim over it. I was hoping to create a starting point, not the be-all, end-all guide to skins. Thanks for the comments. Anything else you can add would be great. As an aside, if you are attending any of the protests during Bush's visit to your land, tell him to bugger off for me too. =) Cheers. vudu 02:17, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I attempted to give the article and injection of info. If anythings unclear or worthless, go ahead and drop it. I did want to have a more complete history, though, even if some of the faction information is useless. Eric S. 10:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Braces

A more thorough explanation of exactly what braces are needs to be given so those who are not familiar with the subculture can better understand. --SilentOpen 20:16, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

No more than ¾ inch in width (In some areas, wider braces are considered to identify one as either white power or a wanna-be.)

Extremely POV to the point of meaninglessness. Braces are there to hold up your trousers, so as to display the sock-tops over boots or shoes. As denim jeans do not possess buttons for the fastening-on of old-fashioned button-braces, original Skins (who might just as readily be called Mods at this stage) used clip-ons, and at this nascent phase there was no three-quarter-inch tyranny. Quite broad, one- to two-inch wide braces were very common at the outset (and continued to be so in some areas, particularly the North of England). Also, these were initially worn over the tanktop, not under as later became usual.

Speaking as a Trad myself, the only factors deciding what colours to wear should be style and contrast. As the Trad revitalised through the late Eighties and Nineties, the impetus was away from the grim and frankly boring WP look. We accordingly made a virtue out of bright colours and Mod-smart self-presentation. It was all Freds and braces in contrast colours, Bennies with razor-sharp creases, tonic suits, cherry Docs bootblacked and polished to an obsidianlike lustre. And of course, this was all happening in tandem (as it were) with the scooter scene, where Skins had the leisure and luxury of developing an intelligent and interesting scene of our own based around the style and the music, which of course was always in flux and never stood still.

Nuttyskin 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories, history, style and other sections

I have never heard of the fourth category, "realist" skinheads. If it's meant to draw a stronger distinction between modern apolitical skins and rude boy/two tone skins, perhaps it should be put back in (with perhaps a note on regional usage?) and it should also be elucidated under "Sects".

I sought to enhance the history by explaining the skinhead/rude boy connection better. I also thought the paragraph on media stigmatization of American skinheads showed some (probably unintended) POV.

With respect to inter-skinhead enmities, the statements were far too general by my experience, but since I don't have a global perspective I added a disclaiming paragraph rather than revise what was written.

From what I have seen, both in America and among foreign skins, strict adherence to old styles is done chiefly by freshcuts and teenagers, although many grownup skins practice it a little, especially if they enjoy collecting vintage skinhead clothes. I added some missing items, but mainly added a paragraph to weaken the notion of a "skinhead dress code," at least for everyday wear.

I removed the "color code" entries for the odder colors. I have never seen these colors in person, only in print, and even then they are generally accompanied with a similar disclaimer. When I saw them tagged "Not in the UK!" I was convinced their use was too rare to be included in a "generic" list. In any case, the whole color section is obsolete as far as I'm concerned. I only left what I did for the historical interest. Unconventional 00:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with you about "realist" skinheads, that just seemed silly. I think you are only half-right about fashion and colors. These things are very important to nazi skinheads, and those who spend their time dwelling on them, and seeking out opportunities to fight w them. Traditional skinheads are a completely different subject, they don't seek out fights at all, in my experience, at least not much more than other subcultures, and so having special items and colors to designate which "team" they are on is much less important. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On review, you're correct--my own Trad POV my be revealed in my attitude toward colors. I don't know how WP and SHARP skins view the subject, and I'm not about to ask, so go ahead and amend it, if you know more. Unconventional 20:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never met a trad skinhead actually, just heard alot about them (their held in a positive light by both SHARP's and Nazi's, in my experience, despite what the article sez).

I'm just a random bald guy who wears boots (my laces are brown, lol). For whatever reason (probably my taste in music and love for parties) SHARP's and Nazi's have tried to "recruit" me (suss me up, I guess? ;), even giving me shoes and suspenders (blue/green suspenders, I was a gay vegetarian cop-killer?!?). Anyhow, your edits seemed ok to me, I havn't read every last word, but the colors stuff you removed seemed silly and almost certainly innaccurate to me. Anyways, glad to have you on the wiki, and feel free to ad anything you can think of to the page, or ask questions in this talk or mine. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glossary: Chelsea

Sam, I'm wondering why you removed "[Chiefly British]" from the definition of a Chelsea as a female skinhead. While I've heard pretentious teenage skinheads use it with that meaning sometimes, in my experience it's far less common in America than "skingirl". Is your experience otherwise? Unconventional 04:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. In wisconsin and ohio, that was the only term I ever heard for a girl skinhead, and I've never heard "skingirl". I've never met a "pretentious" skinhead BTW, whats that? Someone who drinks Red Stripe more than once a month? ;) Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 15:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By "pretentious teenage skinhead" I mean the typical suburban kid pretending he's British, you know, Oi! I'm going down the pub for a few pints with me mates. I don't mean it derogatorily; most trad skins seem to start out that way.

Its weird about that "pretending to be english" thing, goths do that to... maybe england is the mecca of anglo subcultures? Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 17:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I've never heard a Skinhead Girl being referred to as a Chelsea in the UK. The only place I've heard it is on the net! As for the hair, it was always a feathercut, whether it was shaved close or a few inches long. --TrojanSkin 17:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pity the crop never really took off with skin girls - apart from lesbians - I think short hair looks even better on a girl than on a bloke.

Nuttyskin 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I never heard anyone call it a Chelsea or a skingirl either. The name I always heard (eastern and western US) was very much like 'skingirl' but substituting a synonym for girl that technically refers to canines. Arker 08:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arker, you're speaking out of somewhere very like farce substituting a medical term for a muscular ring.

Around the Chicago area, I've always heard the term "Bird". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.24.53 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Levi's and point of view

Removed the phrase "Levis is the best" because it's a POV, and because Sta-Prest is Levi's by definition (it's a trademark). Explained "bleachers" and added it to the glossary. Rewrote Laces & Braces because it had become self-contradictory and overly wordy. Removed "[Not in UK]" from "Chelsea" because, after all, the word CAME from the London district! Instead, I revised the text with the assumption that the word is no longer often used (with the meaning "skinhead girl") anywhere. I believe it WAS used back in the day. Removed references to MA-1 (and MA-2) because other, similar models of flight jackets are commonly worn as well, just as the traditional Docs are not the only boots worn these days. If you want to highlight the strictly traditional gear, perhaps a separate and more complete subtitle under Style would be more appropriate. Unconventional 18:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Levi Sta-Prest have always been regarded by Skinheads as the best Sta-Prest-style trousers. What other similar styles of flight jackets are there? As for Chelsea coming from London, that doesn't mean that it is used in the UK to describe Skinhead Girls. For example, the Irish call an airing cupboard a "hot press", which is an English phrase, but the English don't use it. --TrojanSkin 19:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not represent only a skinhead viewpoint, so even if all skins agree on Levi's, "Levi's is best" is still a POV to Wikipedians in general.

I accept your statement that "Chelsea" is not used that way any more in the UK (nor in America), but that doesn't mean it wasn't used in the past. As you said, there are references on the Internet saying that it was. I've seen it in prose as well. Can you assure me they're all wrong?

I thought MA-1 was an Alpha Industries model; since this came up I've found out it's probably a USAF nomenclature instead. But consider: If "MA-1" is the only type of flight jacket, then "MA-1 flight jacket" is redundant, and "flight jacket" should be chosen because more people know what that is. If there are other types of flight jacket, then "MA-1" shouldn't be singled out. -- Unconventional 19:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair comment!--TrojanSkin 21:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Trad skins - Political? Racist? (+ discussion about Region)

TrojanSkin: Regarding removal of "non-racist" from the Traditional skinhead category, I think that's going too far. By far, most trads are non-racists. If we eliminate it, we should also eliminate "apolitical" because even more trads are political than are racists, but if we eliminate both terms, we'll have no distinguishing characteristics at all. I'm going to restore "non-racist" for this reason, but in deference to your thinking I'll leave it qualified by "largely".

Also, please review "Minor changes" on Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing). Minor changes are changes to presentation, not substance. Several of your substantive changes, including this latest, have been marked "minor" inappropriately, in my opinion. -- Unconventional 22:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, I know way more about this than I probably should ;) Way back in the day, when rude boy Jamaican culture first came to England, the original "skinheads" (all trads of course) were largely dockworkers who enjoyed Jamaican music, culture, etc... These fellows were clearly not often racist against blacks (a significant minority were Jamaican immigrants this early on), but they ‘’were’’ sometimes racist against Pakistanis. I have heard some very amusing (to me) anti-Pakistani songs from this era (mid-60's). The anti-Pakistani thing was because Pakistanis were interested in the same sorts of jobs these fellows were, bit possessed of a significantly different culture. Later on, when English football hooligans became involved in the scene, real British nationalist, nazi-esque style racism began to appear. That’s a whole other thing from the everyday racial opinions a Jamaican dock worker and his British rude boy friend might have shared about "pakis taking all the jobs", etc... SHARPS, red skins, and whatever else came along significantly later of course, and largely as an outlet for rowdy Lefties. As far as trad-skin politics, they are about the same as anybody else, w perhaps a bit more emphasis on working class values and economic hardships, again quite different from the commies and nazi's which can be found amongst non-trad skins. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know "way more", too. I know blokes in their sixties who were original Skinheads, traditional in appearance, who were racist. I also have regular contact with blokes of the same era (again, ex-Skinheads), who weren't. Therefore removing "non-racist" is not going too far. Or are we to have racist non-racist Traditional Trojan Nazi bonehead SHARP skins? It is a FACT that not all traditional Skinheads are non-racist, not a nice one to some people, but a FACT nonetheless. I would be happy to introduce you to some! Sorry for including "minor edit". Maybe this needs addressing. Changing one grammatical point seems to me to be minor! --TrojanSkin 04:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I accept that there are racist trads. I, too, know some. There are certainly also politically active trads. If we strike "non-racist" because it's not an absolute, should we not also strike "apolitical"? And if we do that, what identity is left for trads? It would seem to me that it ceases to be a strict alternative to "Neo-Nazi" and "SHARP" under these conditions. Yet I'm sure you'll agree that we skinheads DO consider "Neo-Nazi", "SHARP", and "Traditional" the three main segments of the subculture. How, then, do we characterize trads?

In the final analysis, every skinhead is an individual with varying positions on political and racist scales. Broad categorizations are meant to be suggestive, not necessarily precise. If we are to have categories combining multiple scales (political and racist in this case), we must accept that some individuals will not precisely fit any category, especially if, as in this case, the individuals choose their own category. To demand precision is to require additional categories so that all combinations are represented (racist-apolitical, for example). But that simply isn't how skinheads group themselves in the real world.

I suggested "largely non-racist" to make the imprecision explicit, and because I believe the majority of trads consider themselves non-racists. In fact, I believe that the majority of US trads consider "non-racist" a more important defining characteristic than "apolitical". We are apparently from different cultures, so you may disagree. If so, what do you think are the defining characteristics of a traditional skinhead? Perhaps we can reach a compromise.

Re: Minor edits. Removing "non-racist" is not a minor edit because it changes the meaning of the text. You can make any number of corrections or improvements to punctuation, spelling, layout, or even phrasing, and it is still a minor change provided you don't change the meaning. As soon as you change the meaning, it is no longer minor, by the definition given in Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing). -- Unconventional 07:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see us disagreeing about any of this. An individual trad skin is no more likely to be racist than anti-racist, no more likely top be interested in politics than not, their just average people on these issues, w perhaps a bit of extra emphasis towards being working class. The important thing is that trad skins generally are not defined by racism, anti-racism, or any particular type of politics (except perhaps that which relates directly to being working class). In short their not Nazis, SHARPs, or commies, but they do like some aspects of Jamaican culture, particularly SKA. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I mostly agree. In particular, when you say "trad skins generally are not defined by racism [or] anti-racism," to me that's what "largely non-racist" means, which is why I wanted to retain that term. But I can also see that to some readers "non-racist" may seem synonymous with "anti-racist," so your suggestion is better. The only thing that bothers me with your definition is that, as I said previously, it is no longer a strict alternative to "Neo-Nazi" and "SHARP". But I guess that's not a serious problem, and in its favor is that it reflects the fact that a racist working class skin might choose to identify with either faction.

With this definition, don't we need to modify the heading statement "[Skinheads] divide themselves and their allegiances across [should be along] political and racism lines"? Second, shouldn't we define the first faction as White Power, with Neo-Nazi as the subgroup, since White Power is more general? (There are WP/racist skins who don't worship Hitler, but all Nazi skins are racists as far as I know.) And third, shouldn't the article intro and the Sects section identify the factions with the same terminology? I've avoided making these changes pending a consensus on the Trad definition.

TrojanSkin, I hope you'll comment here as well.

-- Unconventional 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One thing we must keep in mind is the importance of common usage. I've always heard the big three catagories of Skinheads refered to as Nazi Skinhead, Anti-Racist Skinhead (often SHARP or ARA, but not always), and Traditional Skinhead. The last always emphasized SKA, Jamaican/English Rudeboy history, and less violence (especially violence related to fashion) and less interest in strict fashion generally. In short, traditional skins strike me as less trendy. There are books on this stuff too, I've seen them! Anyways, its important that we use the terms which are most common, and Nazi is a more common term for a skinhead than "white power", even if its not always technically correct.

Another thing this article needs is a discussion of region. Where I lived in Wisconsin, there were no Nazi skins, and every skinhead I met was ARA or SHARP. Here in Germany its the complete opposite, with every skinhead I've even heard of being far-right or Nazi.

And what about a random baldguy like me? I wear boots and listen to SKA and other Jamaican music sometimes, I even like redstripe. Even if I didnt, some people would still think of me as a skinhead, even tho I don't call myself one. The article needs more on how bald people, especially youg bald people, are percieved. Does anyone remember the old definition?

1.(singular) Somebody whose hair is too short or whose head is shaved, a baldheaded man.

2.(plural) A group of usually young men who use a hairless head as a symbol of upheaval, racism or anarchy and are occasionally aggressive and hostile.

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point about common usage. "Neo-Nazi" should stay.

Your reflections on trads are somewhat different from mine, which were cultivated in the US. Remember my (non-derogatory) comment about pretentious teens? When first getting into the subculture, it's common for freshcut trads to identify with the originals, though in addition to Jamaican music and style they adopt Oi!/streetpunk and hardcore music. As they become adults, many lose interest in ska and Oi! except as collectors' items, and expand into RAC, metal, and underground punk. A significant number of adult trad skins do, in fact, sneer at freshcut British pretensions ("You're American, not British, dammit!"). As for violence, intra-trad fights over respect issues (shit talking) are common, and a number of cities have trad crews who regularly do "street sweeping" (driving out Nazis, or sometimes SHARPS, who try to take over trad turf). Enclaves such as you describe in Wisconsin still exist (I believe Detroit is much like that right now) but large cities such as Chicago and San Francisco are closer to my description. (Via the Internet, I converse almost daily with intelligent young adults, mostly trads but some WP, from around the country. I don't travel much, and this may be a somewhat non-representative group, but I don't think it's too far off.)

I'm not sure how you propose to handle region. Your perception of Wisconsin being ARA/SHARP doesn't generalize to the whole US. Currently, the midwest (esp. Indiana), central and northern Florida, and parts of Pennsylvania and New York are among Hammerskin strongholds. Portland, Oregon was White Power at least until recently. Southern Florida has an expanding SHARP movement, while southern California, Seattle, and most of NYC are under trad control. These alignments change from time to time as well (my own area was WP just a few years ago). Perhaps regional generalizations would make more sense in Europe; I've often wondered how things are run over there.

-- Unconventional 03:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was too broad with region, and the more I think about it, what I said probably applied more to my city than anything. Wisconsin is a big state, and I'm certain there were completely different situations in other areas. but even in a place like Chicago, their are neighborhoods where different "firms" predominate. As far as Trad skinheads, I confess my ignorance. The only people I've ever known personally who were even close wern't skinheads at all, but SKA fans who were interested in the scene. I was going off of what I've read online, their are some pretty good sites on the net. I research street gangs and youth movements, militias etc... quite a bit, but thats never as useful of info as knowing people first hand. What did you think of the current intro? I'm worried the statement on trads may be a bit long, and imperfctly informative. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I revised it a little, and made it consistent with the list under Sects (which term I standardized as "category" throughout, for clarity).

Why not add links for the web sites you mentioned? My favorite site for skinhead history sadly no longer exists. It contained material George Marshall collected while writing Skinhead Nation.

-- Unconventional 06:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

trad skins "emphasized SKA, Jamaican/English Rudeboy history, and less violence (especially violence related to fashion) and less interest in strict fashion generally. In short, traditional skins strike me as less trendy"??

that's quite the opposite from what I have found out and experienced - what I think is that trad skins would have more interest in fashion as the ones closer to the mods. which other groups would be more trendy? the ones concerned with politics? come on!

Demographics

"# Traditional, Trad, Trojan (after the Trojan Records label) or Original Skins - This group closely identifies itself with the original skinhead movement ("The Spirit of 69"), maintaining working class pride. This group is the largest segment of the subculture."

Do we have any evidence to support the statement above? In my limited experience this is certainly not true, but I don't know for certain either way. Unless we have some concrete to say so, I'd move to cut out that last sentence. siafu 03:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did some Google searching for "skinhead statistics" with no useful results. I suspect empirical data is a pipe dream, for several reasons:

• While some research on the numbers of racist skinheads exists, researchers and the media have rarely considered non-racist skinheads as worthy of attention.
• WP and SHARP skinheads are usually organized and probably aware of their own membership levels, but traditional skinheads have no organization or registration, so no meaningful census can be taken of them. Moreover, the organizations might well be motivated to overstate their numbers to enhance their public images.
• Although the 3 categories are subjectively obvious to those of us in the subculture, they are not very useful as empirical definitions because of possible overlaps. See the paragraphs above for some debate on this topic.

I wish I could justify the impression among us non-racists that WP skinheads are a minority, but in truth it might result simply from the fact that WP groups operate largely in secrecy and do not freely mingle with us. I can't think of any unbiased, practical way of either measuring or deducing the relative sizes. Thus, I'm forced to agree that the statement in question is POV. Unconventional 07:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

199.217.208.172's History vis-a-vis St. Louis

I'm not familiar with this group of black "skinheads" from the mid-1960s. You describe them as having shaved heads and wearing skinhead attire, and even being called skinheads. I find this hard to believe, as skinheads in London hadn't yet received much media attention even at home, let alone in middle America. I'm not saying this St. Louis group didn't exist, only that they probably had no connection to the skinheads who originated in London, and who are the subject of this article. (I wonder if this group you're speaking of was actually derived from the Jamaican rude boys. That would explain a lot to me. But rude boys are a distinct group from skinheads, and deserve their own article, in which your information would be more appropriate.)

With respect to the phrase "and was a very influential in the punk rock movement in Saint Louis, Missouri" which you added to the mention of the founding of SHARP, its placement left the sentence ungrammatical. More importantly, SHARP no doubt influenced other movements, and in more places than St. Louis, so it comes off as too narrow a POV to be suitable here. It would certainly work in an article on the emergence of punk rock, or subcultures in St. Louis, though.

Regarding your final paragraph, I think it's entirely your personal POV. You talk as if there were some organized skinhead "movement" that wandered off course and is now being corrected. No doubt this is your perception and your political agenda. There is no "skinhead movement" because there is no central authority to define its purpose and regulate its membership. What you're really referring to, I believe, is an attempt by some skinheads to stop other skinheads from calling themselves skinheads. WP skins also do this, hoping to eliminate the non-racists. Moreover, if skinheads "returned to its roots of the rude boys" they would be rude boys, not skinheads--and btw, the rude boys of Jamaica were all criminals. Unconventional 21:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term Rude Boys originally designated a set of criminals, yes, but the Rude Boy look was of course copied by many young Black men eager to bask in their reflected inglory. They certainly looked the part, and must I think be included as part of the definition of what Rude Boy meant to Jamaican culture. In many ways they were the precursors of the Tuff Gongs of the 1970s; but they were no more "all" criminals than boutiqued identikit homies in Lakers shirts are criminals, even though they outwardly impersonate Gangsta Rappers.

Nuttyskin 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trojan Skinheads

Is this article accurate? If so, whats the difference between a sharp and a trojan skin? Are trojan and trad equivelent? Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also question the article, and intend to edit Talk:Trojan_Skinheads.

Re: your questions: This is what I was afraid would happen earlier when I tried to reach consensus with User:TrojanSkin on the definition of "traditional skinhead". The category now overlaps the other two, and has no clear meaning at all. The answer, within the current definitions, is "you're comparing apples and oranges". Either a SHARP or a Nazi can be also a Trojan.

Sam, you and I had a pretty good consensus on the definitions here. TrojanSkin never chimed in on it, and seems to have gone MIA. I'm going to try revising the categories again.

As for trojan/trad equivalence, there is a subtle difference. (Warning: POV ahead!) For Trojans, the subculture identity is about Original and (maybe) second-wave music and style. For trads, it's about bringing Original values (like loyalty, self-reliance, and working class pride) into modern youth subculture. A less esoteric (and thus more practical) distinction is that Trojans idealize ska, skinhead reggae, northern soul, etc. while trads spend more time listening to oi!, hardcore, punk, and general rock & roll.

Unconventional 20:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simply untrue. Trojan skins are more likely to in fact be Trads themselves, although many who profess to be Trojan skins look superficially indistinguishable from the Oi! crowd. Similarly with Either a SHARP or a Nazi can be also a Trojan - this is nonsense. Any stripe of skin can be a Trojan, but in practice only a SHARP, a Trad or an unaligned "ordinary" skin would even want to be. Racists who are skins or aren't are likewise perfectly capable of appreciating Black music, but I doubt many would want consciously to identify with it.

Nuttyskin 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All of that goes along w what I know, you can feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary. I think there is a tendancy among SHARP or ARA skinheads to place a positive emphasis on trad skins, and perhaps to feel they are one and the same. Thats just off the top of my head tho, and not article worthy w/o some back up. Sam Spade 00:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italic textp.s the name Trojan came from Trojan Records one of the very first oi! music records. OI!OI!OI!

Can we say b*ll*cks on here? Trojan Records are of course an enormously famous Reggae label.

Nuttyskin 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazi-Skinheads (Neo-Nazi Skins, sometimes called White Power)

If racist skinheads are not connected to Nazism, what are they connected to? Pharlap 10:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Nazism presumably implies a dedication to or reverence for the goals and beliefs of the Nazi Party in WWII. While these goals and beliefs include racist tenets, one can obviously be a racist without subscribing to Nazi Party politics in general. There are plenty of white supremacist organizations (Aryan Nations for example) which do not overtly associate themselves with neo-Nazism. Non-Nazi racist skinheads can affiliate with these. Incidentally, a "racist skinhead" in my mind is a skinhead who believes that racism is an essential part of being a skinhead, not merely one who happens to be a racist. Earlier arguments on this page correctly insist that some traditional skinheads hold racist viewpoints. In my mind, the distinguishing question is whether they consider "non-racist skinhead" a contradiction in terms.

From an organizational standpoint, I would prefer to have the neo-Nazi category titled something like "White Power skinheads" since that is a more inclusive term. "Neo-Nazi skinheads" would then be a subcategory. However, Sam Spade argued convincingly that "Neo-Nazi skinheads," despite its inaccuracy, is the more commonly used term among the general public and should therefore be retained. The disclaiming sentence to which your question refers is meant to point out the inaccuracy. If you think it needs expansion, by all means go for it. Unconventional 12:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would point out that while american racist skinheads may not always be "nazis", I have never met or heard of a German skinhead who isn't a Nazi and NPD supporter. Here is a handy news link [1]. Sam Spade 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically speaking, though the term Nazi is used loosely to describe a racist as well as, more specifically, a member of an extreme right-wing political party or paramilitary group, the correct word should be either fascist or neofascist. The reason for this being that even Nazism was not in itself a fascist party, but a pseudo-fascist party assembled out of disparate groups, strongly nationalist and antisemitic but originally strongly socialist in character.

However, I agree that this is pedantry, because Nazi is the word people do tend to use. An apparently contentious term, according to recent on-wiki events, is bonehead; however, not only is this a pejorative used by non-racists to describe racist skins, but increasingly also is used even by some racist skins of themselves.

Nuttyskin 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazy skins are dirty PIGS!!!

Nazi and WP skins are not (necessarily) one and the same

Regarding the following comment by Unconventional: "Sam Spade argued convincingly that "Neo-Nazi skinheads," despite its inaccuracy, is the more commonly used term among the general public and should therefore be retained"....

Well, I agree that most of the public uses the term "Neo-Nazi" or simply "Nazi" as a catch-all for any skinhead who espouses a racist ideology, but since when does the fact that some term is "more commonly used" mean that it ought to be the term used in an encyclopedia, regardless of the fact that it's innacurate and misleading? We're supposed to be putting together an educational resource here, not a dictionary of popular usage, right?

Is this, as Nuttyskin says, pedantry? I don't think so. The Ottawa, Canada of my mid-teen years (late 80s and early 90s) was a city absolutely packed with skins of all stripes, and the racists among them went out of their way to characterize themselves as "national socialists" if they had Nazi leanings (handily indicated by the red laces in their Docs, as well as their penchant for Nazi iconography, such as tattoos of swastikas and "88"--meaning Heil Hitler), while the more run-of-the-mill white power types also went out of their way to announce their racist tendencies (white laces, generally confrontational attitude), but generally didn't go in for the Nazi thing. Interacting with them over the years, I got the impression that the latter group tended to view their "Nazi" counterparts as, at best, a bit creepily sentimental and fetishistic. From what I saw, they had a point. At any rate, while the two groups tolerated each other for the most part, and intermingled at concerts and parties in a somewhat friendly way (and certainly more so than they would with SHARPS, but that much is obvious), they were nevertheless two discreet entities. To wit: the attitude among most of the WP skins I knew to was more akin to the attitude of a lot of black power types--racial pride/consciousness, a feeling of having been hard-done-by because of one's skin color, and a general distaste-for/mistrust-of whatever group isn't the one you belong to. As an acquaintance of mine used to put it, "It's not about hating anyone. It's about being proud of who you are and where you come from, and more than that, building yourself up so you have a reason to be proud." He was a WP skin, but I always thought he sounded an awful lot like Eldridge Cleaver when he spoke that way. What he didn't sound much like, on the other hand, was a Nazi. Buck Mulligan 05:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All those nazi skins are awful. I wish them die and burn in hell (i know yhey will).

Brazilian skinheads

I've corrected a bit on Brazilian skins; the previous version described them as mostly anti-racist, which seems rather unlikely to be true. I won't claim to know a lot about the subject, so I hope someone who does will fix it up, but certainly the most visible skins there are white power skins, who've been involved in a lot of nastiness over the last 10 years or so. Rafaelgr 03:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Skinheads and violence -Comments from 65.87.169.2

"Each category of skinhead may be considered to be hostile to a number of other groups, though violence is the exception to a rule of name-calling, harassment and defamation behind closed doors."

Sure, the groups toward which skinheads are hostile fills up an entire section, and skinheads are described as having "enemies," and the glossary explains the terms "aggro" and "boot party," but "as a rule" skinheads will have nothing to do with violence? It would be ludicrous to put this kind of sniveling whitewash into an entry on punk. How stupid do you think your readers are?

(Excuse me if I've offended your delicate sensibilities, skinheads - I know it is just SO IMPORTANT that everyone understands that skinheads are really peaceful and wonderful people who just happen to kick the shit out of pacifists they outnumber 3 to 1.)

Although I didn't pen the phrase you cite, and in fact I agree it has a slightly PC ring to it, it is nevertheless accurate in my experience. Personal grudges are often resolved by fighting, but intergroup enmities are not, at least not on a large scale. It is more often the threat of violence, rather than the realization of it, which governs.

Although you exaggerate with "skinheads will have nothing to do with violence" (which was certainly not said), you may be making a valid point that the article seems to contradict itself. Unfortunately, your sarcasm obscures the point for me, and your (very useful) edit does not seem to support your point. Could you state more plainly what you believe about skinheads' attitude toward and/or use of violence? It may be that a further edit is in order. --Unconventional 07:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I will point out that the common outsiders opinion on skinheads is pretty simple "young bald guys who fight alot". Racist also often gets tossed into the mix, along w boots and suspenders, but 3 to one beatdowns on pacifists I have yet to hear of. Maybe your thinking of protest warriors? Sam Spade 08:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure where the emphasis is in your statement "3 to one beatdowns on pacifists I have yet to hear of." Are you saying beatdowns are unknown to you, or beatdowns on pacifists? If the former, I'm surprised. While I wouldn't say they're common in any given area (except Russia), bashings of various minorities or of rival group members aren't really uncommon worldwide. Whether the victims are actually 'pacifists' is another question. Being a minority doesn't automatically make you pacifist. The writer's use of that term actually makes me wonder whether he is speaking from personal experience, since otherwise how would he know? --Unconventional 19:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The latter, of course! I was making a small joke, I'm sure there has somewhere occured an incident wherin a pascifist was beaten by a skinhead, but thats not exactly a group they are known for persecuting, and indeed in my experience the most likely person for a skinhead to fight is someone who looks quite alot like himself. I have a friend who was choked unconscious by a skinhead at a disco for no apparent reason, and he was a young white guy w a military jacket. Sam Spade 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have responded to this before. One of the things that unites all serious skinheads is a rule that you don't go to the cops over a fight. This means you can beat up another skinhead with a reasonable assurance that you won't be arrested. Naturally, this doesn't apply to non-skinheads, so beating them up is riskier. This explains your observation, I think. As for your friend, he may have been mistaken for a visiting skinhead from out of town. He would have been expected therefore to introduce himself, and failure to do so would have been taken as deliberate disrespect toward the locals. The choking was simply to say "Mind your manners, or don't come back!" Alternatively, there may have been some emblem or insignia on the jacket which offended his attacker.

I'd love to know where all this received wisdom comes from about skinheads. If you're beaten up in an unprovoked attack to the extent that you have to go to hospital to get stitches, etc., I and all the skins I know would feel perfectly justified in going to the police and making a complaint against the guy that did it to you. Skinheads aren't some homogeneous tribe of mermydons with one unified opinion about everything.

Nuttyskin 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your right, and that this rule that you don't go to the cops over a fight be included in the article as something uniting sharps, nazi's and trad skins. My friend has fairly short hair, and wears emblems on his jacket, and said the skinhead stared at him w a weird look when he first went in, so you story makes perfect sense. Sam Spade 16:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be a section on skinhead violence. Skinheads are a cult of violence that gang together and use intimidation and violence to gain power over others. Perhaps older skins have grown out of this mentality, but the whole allure of being a skin is having boys that will back each other up when someone or a group disagrees with their worldview. Whether it's nazi's beating up minorities or sharps beating up nazis its the exact same destructive mentality in different packaging.

Russian skinheads

I've added several links to our websites dedicated to the Traditional Skinheads. Please, don't add press garbage about "Racism in Russia" or "Evil army of mr.Putin", it's just not true. In our post-communist country we still have no laws to settle down our cheap newspapers, they reporting lies. The so-called "caucasophobia" was started by them. But in reality, very few russian skinheads are in politics. Most of them linked to football and music. Ska is the order of the day. Vugluskr 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is acceptable, but only when balanced w "army of Putin" and National Bolshevism informations. Sam Spade 16:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out this article: [2]

Sam Spade 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian skinheads are awful. They are present Qasimodas.They are looking like dirty pigs. There are so many racist in Russia and that's very disgusting.

Boneheads are around

I notice you dislike this image. I think the article needs more images, not less. Why do you think it should be removed? Also, changing the caption to "boneheads" was in poor taste. Sam Spade 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded the "Skinhead Revolt" album cover. It shows the original style from late sixties. Hope people will compare it with bonehead wide-pant "style" and make a decision that this style looks better. Vugluskr 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Both should be included, regardless of their pant width ;) Sam Spade 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

They're called trousers, or jeans; and the width of trouser bottoms was never an issue. A very popular kind of original-style skinhead jeans were Skinners, which were basically flared (usually white) denim trousers, but cut-off and rolled or folded to mid-calf (turn-ups).

Nuttyskin 04:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

External sites - too many?

Now the list of links has come from the 'to be deleted' link page, the list seems a bit long for this article. Does one of these links point to somewhere with a bit of a list so we can trim this down? AntiVan 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already been trimming, but feel free to lend a hand. Some of them are good links, alot of them are not, and some are just commercial websites (I deleted most of those already I think...) Sam Spade 15:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem goes further. How else can we public them? I tried to join non-English sites to German & French pages but editors deleted them during two hours ("spam", "vandalismo" etcetera). It looks like I know their scene better than them :( Vugluskr 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that the list should be shortened. I haven't noticed other Wikipedia articles with that many links. I think the external links should only go to sites that help further explain what the skinhead subculture is. Message boards, commercial sites and sites about regional scenes don't really add to knowledge about skinheads.Spylab 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• I deleted a whole bunch of external links because they don't really suit the purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. External sites should support and expand on information in the article.Spylab 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Censorship

Please don't go thru and delete all the nazi links, or call them "boneheads" in the article, or whatever. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to censor, insult or feud. The goal is to provide fair and balanced info to everyone. No one is going to change their mind or grow as a person based on insults or ignorance. Sam Spade 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi links about racism, not skinheads -- especially Free Your Mind Productions, where many of the followers are metalheads or 'normal' looking fascists. Most of the people in the Toledo Nazi photo don't even dress like skinheads, so they should not be used as an example of skinheads. If it's about "balance", then you should post a picture of reds, in which only half the people in the picture are skinheads, or post links to left wing music sites, in which only some followers are skins? Otherwise the claim of balance is a sham. This is supposed to be factual about skinheads, not the same misinformation that the mass media churns out.

....ok, so you put the Nazi stuff back in. I added a photo of anti-racist skinheads and added anti-racist skinhead links. That way it will be "fair and balanced", and you can't complain about censorship.

Nice work, thats what its all about! Any chance of you creating an account? Sam Spade 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Most of the people in the Toledo Nazi photo don't even dress like skinheads, so they should not be used as an example of skinheads: however, there is evidence (German skinheads interviewed for World of Skinhead) that in non-Anglophone countries, the word skinhead is simply used as another way of saying racist.

Nuttyskin 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite for "Style" section?

I find the information in the "Style" section unbelievable. Can anyone please give a reliable cite for this? -- 201.51.201.107 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-what exactly is unbelievable? Be specific and maybe you'll get an answer.

Both George Marshall's Spirit of 69 and Jim Ferguson's contribution to Nick Knight's Skinhead display knowledge of a wide range of clothes and footwear in vogue either fleetingly or consistently throughout the Skinhead Era, from the broadly popular to the totally obscure. The one disagreement between them is over Crombies: Jim Ferguson asserts they and Skinhead "missed each other by a year"; Marshall (and everyone else) begs to differ.

Nuttyskin 04:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Punk"-Skinheads (aka Oi skinhead)

why are the "Punk"-Skinheads not included in the catogories of Skinhead section?, it keeps getting removed, the "Punk"-Skin is a non-political skinhead who preferred the the punk influenced para-military style dress, its got to be some damn mardy old trad who is running the show on this page.

-Punk-skin doesn't mean non-political. I don't know where you get that idea. Get a better definition and maybe it will stay. Besides, there's already a mention of the punk-influence Oi! scene in the rest of the article.

well "punk/Oi" Skins are often loathed by trad skins in the UK, the trads call "oi-skins", dirty, glue sniffing bald punks and the two "styles" are often kept seprate even if they have the same ideals, around the world "trad" and "punk" skin "style" traits have been mixed slightly, i mean in the USA a "trad" is a non-political skinhead weather first wave or punk influenced and "punk"-skin refers to a punk in skinhead gear over there

in england your one or the other most of the time i guess, you wouldnt see a trad dead in a band or union jack-shirt and rarely would ever see an Oi-skin in a crombie

Well, Scotland isn't England, but here it's quite common to see perfectly Trad blokes going about in bomber jackets, becausae they've been around so long they've become classics themselves. Besides, they're warm and they emphasise your shoulders (de-emphasise your beergut), and besides contemporary skinwear is influenced by what's happening on the scooter scene, where the green or black MA1 is virtually de rigueur.

Nuttyskin 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

prehaps "Oi influenced skinhead" would be a better definition

Symbology and lace colors

Different areas have different meanings for laces and braces, jackets etc. For example, in Portland, OR, Skins with red braces or laces indicate racists, where as in San Francisco they don't and in Germany, Red laces and braces indicate the opposite of the racists, they indicate communists. Could we have a list of what different colors/jackets mean in different areas. I think that would be helpful, particularly for people trying not to get killed when moving cities, or trying not to kill the wrong people when moving cities.

-Colour codes are mostly irrelevant these days. Any attempt at a list would be innacurate, out of date and unverifiable. If you're afraid of being killed over your bootlaces, you probably shouldn't be a skinhead or associate with skinheads.

The only people who really care about laces/braces colours are gay skins, and that's all a kind of sex-fetish thing: they're a shorthand way of telling what someone is "into", supposedly. So, for example, yellow laces were meant to indicate watersports. But I always wore yellow laces in cherryred Docs because that was mainstream ("straight") code for scooter-skins and the Northern Soul scene.

Nuttyskin 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

-Red Laces meant national socialist or social justice and are used by racialist skinheads. White laces mean White Pride/Power and sometimes are used by skinheads that are non-political simply to allow a sort of eay fit into either scene, racialist skinheads or trad and sharp skins. A recent new identification is green laces used by the newly emerging National Anarchist Skinheads.

• Laces have meant totally different things in different places and times. Red has also meant socialist or anarchist; White has also meant anarchist in some places. There's no point in trying to codify the meanings in Wikipedia, since the list will never be fully accurate, and because these days lace colour is almost meaningless.Spylab 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

What the?

"Shaven ballsacks"? Isn't it head? I would change it, but I'm no expert, maybe I've got it wrong all this time :-s

Reverted recent changes

I deleted the claim that the original skins were dock workers. This is largely a myth, since most of the first skins were teens in school, not dock workers. And of those who did have jobs, they worked at many different types of places, not just the docks. I also deleted the links to articles about neo-Nazis, since this article is about the skinhead culture, not about extremist politics. Those links are appropriate for the Nazi-Skinheads article, not this one.

I also just noticed this:"...on the docks of Jamaica (where the term "Skinhead" came from) in the mid to late 1950s." This is totally false. The term skinhead originated in England, not Jamaica. And I don't know where the idea came from that the Jamaican immigrants who influenced skinhead culture were dock workers back in Jamaica. That's the first time I've seen someone claim that, and I really doubt that it's true.Spylab 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Yeah, there's too much bloody leftoid revisionism on this page! Jamaican music, granted, but rudeboys' style influence on Skinheads? It was minimal, if any at all! It was mostly the other way around. The biggest style influence on Skinheads was the whole Ivy League fashion. .noonday_underground

• The information about rude boys is backed up by a reference, and I'm sure many more can be found to confirm that rude boy fashion influenced skinheads. Two specific examples off the top of my head are Trilby hats and trousers that were hemmed short enough to show socks. Rude boys and mods wore many similar clothing styles, (including Ivy League styles), and who's to say where the lines are drawn? Even the British mod fashions were influenced by people in other countries, including black American jazz and soul musicians. Finally, I'm not sure what information about subcultural elements like fashion, music and slang have to do with "leftist revisionism." Spylab 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservative, non-racist skins

As for the recent deletion of the category of right wing/conservative skinheads, I find it amazing that someone would claim that conservative non-racist skinheads don't exist. It seems to be mostly an American thing, but they definitely exist. They appear to make up a large portion of the United States skinhead population.Spylab 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I don't know about America but this certainly doesn't exist in Europe. Anyway, you better find a SOURCE. Mitsos 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My source is many years of real life, meeting skinheads from the USA and other countries, and by reading content published in zines, and posted on the Internet, by American skinheads. If you check any message board dominated by American skinheads, you will soon realize what I'm saying is true. Conservative skinheads definitely exist, and deleting that information is not justified.Spylab 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Of course they exist. Spirit of '76 is the 1st group that springs to mind. We had a rather large group in my unit in the army, and had to fight and argue with our chain of command all the time to convince them we were not a hate group. On a side note, Mitsos, why are so eager to defend an ideology that considers you and your people (Hellans, Greeks) non-human and would exterminate you if put into power? Why would a non-white espouse the doctrine of white nationalism? Just curious. L0b0t 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line "The most common being the "Spirit of '76" skins." I've been in the American skinhead scene for years, I run a skinhead music zine, and I've never heard of a "Spirit of '76" skin. Is this supposed to be a specific crew, or just a way to say patriotic, American skinhead? Gainesstreetsaint 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal debate about racism, not related to skinhead article

"considers you and your people (Hellans, Greeks) non-human and would exterminate you if put into power?" "Why would a non-white espouse the doctrine of white nationalism?" ARE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND??????????????????? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A GREEK PERSON??????????? THE GREEK PEOPLE ARE WHITE PEOPLE. Probably you haven't visited Greece for holidays. White Nationalism doesn't considers Greeks "non-human" as you say, because Greeks are White. The biggest racist of all times, Hitler, admired Greeks and the ancient Greek civilization. Goebels visited Greece many times. And if you doubt the existence of Greek neo-nazis see this:Hrisi Avgi. If mean that whites are onle the blond, blue-eyed, Northern Europeans visit the site racial reality. Also, I 'm not defending this ideology in wikipedia. I try to keep my POV away from wikipedia. Mitsos 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I have already posted this message on your profile discussion page, but you deleted it, which is against Wikipedia policy. Also, please always sign into your account when editing articles on Wikipedia. There are several unsigned edits that were obviously made by you.Spylab 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Mitsos, I'm sorry if I have offended you. That was never my intention, I am just curious. I do know quite a few Greeks (I'm enjoying some Venizolos coffee and galactibouriko as I write in my neighborhood diner.) and none of them consider themselves "white", they are Greek. Heirs to a magnificient civilization, inventors of democracy, builders of the Parthenon, but not white by a long shot. No one doubts the existence of fascist elements amongst the Greeks but white supremecy and fascism are not the same thing. If a Greek were to show up at say a KKK meeting, then trouble would soon ensue. In the eyes of the white power movement Greeks are no more white than Italians, Turks, Persians, Armenians, Macedonians, Cypriots, Spainiards, Hebrews, Egyptians, Sicillians, or any of the other swarthy, olive skinned peoples from the Mediterranean. Again, no offense intended, I'm just curious. L0b0t 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"none of them consider themselves "white", they are Greek." I don't think so. Ask them about their race not their nationality. Greeks aren't black, asian or indian. They are white. Maybe Greek-Americans say they aren't white in order to seperate themselves from the White Anglo-Saxon Americans. Anyway, I always considered Greek-Americans as idiots. I believe you aren't idiot and you can see the difference between a Greek person and a Black person. You said "In the eyes of the white power movement Greeks are no more white than Italians, Turks, Persians, Armenians, Macedonians, Cypriots, Spainiards, Hebrews, Egyptians, Sicillians, or any of the other swarthy, olive skinned peoples from the Mediterranean" I don't know about about the American WN movement, but the European WN parties of the Nordic countries consider the mediterranean people brothers. The Italians and the Spainiards are White too. Cypriots (except from turkish-cypriots) are Greeks (despite their funny accent) and therefore White. Of course White Supremacy and Fascism go together. Have you ever seen a black fascist? Also, the name Ku Klux Klan comes from the Greek word "kyklos" (circle). Mitsos 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid response. This is a line of reasoning I've never heard before and I appreciate your willingness to discuss. White Supremacy and Fascism sometimes go together, sometimes not. There are many black fascists, most African dictators for example. The Republic of South Africa was the only nation with White Supremacy written into it's constitution but was not fascist at all, they were a representational democracy. Spain, Italy, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Zaire, Brazil all have had fascist regimes that were not White Supremecist in any way, shape, or form.L0b0t 12:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I 'm always happy to discuss and answer your questions. The African dictators weren't Fascist (I mean ideologicaly, like Mussolini and Hitler) they were simply despotic. About South Africa, White Supremacy can exist without the fascist element, but not Fascism (or better National Socialism) without White Supremacy. Mitsos 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"White Supremacy can exist without the fascist element, but not Fascism (or better National Socialism) without White Supremacy." Sure it can, please see fascism. L0b0t 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This discusion started because I reported of a greek neo-nazi, nationalist organization which you called fascist. I never said it was fascist organization. I was talking about National Socialism (which goes together with White Supremacy). Mitsos 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. You are quite correct about National Socialism. L0b0t 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey,HOMO SAPIENS.Is that really matters what colour of skin do you have?How much melanin do you have?Open you eyes, PEOPLE.We're livin' in 21 century, but it seems like in minus 100000000 century.Remember the mankind history. We are ALL came from Africa.Be HUMAN, not dirty pig, like those nazi skins.I can say that I'm human. And you?

Discussion please

Their has been 52 edits to this articial today and the outcome has be very little [3]. WP:3RR has surely been breched please discuss futher changes before making changes (Gnevin 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

• That's because most of the new content is not up to Wikipedia standards. I have kept the new content that is worthy of being here. The content that I deleted is either 1) not relevant to skinhead culture (like the definition of straight-laced 2) based on point of view (such as the claim that SHARPs are merely patriotic skins who don't want to be confused as white power) or 3) simply innacurate (like the list of supposed meanings of lace colours). The 3 revert rule shouldn't apply to content that clearly not useful or up to factual standards. Wikipedia isn't obliged to publish everybody's opinions that aren't based in facts. Most of these new additions are by an unsigned editor who didn't explain the edits with comments, so they don't carry much weight anyway. Which specific edits of mine do you disagree with? Spylab 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I don't really have time to go through the whole 52 + edits that why i refrained from making any specific comments or blaiming any user in particular user it just seems to me that after 52 edits the artical should of moved on some what (Gnevin 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

• I agree that after 52 edits, there should be some improvement, but unfortunately most of those additions were not factually accurate or relevant to the topic — and were simply based on the (United States-centric) point of view of an anonymous editor. Also, the high number of edits is because most of those additions should have been made within one edit, however the anonymous editor chose to make several separate edits instead. I also made extra edits when I re-added content that I should not have deleted.Spylab 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Useful vs non-useful links

Generally, Wikipedia articles don't link to message boards, because they are full of irrelevant topics, non-verified information and people arguing with each other over petty personal disputes. Skinheads.net is particularly useless in helping people learn more about skinhead culture, especially since the people at that message board almost never talk about topics directly related to skinhead culture. They mostly talk about stuff like weddings, births, favourite drinks, what they ate for breakfast that morning, international politics, etc. Spylab 12:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.

I don't understand the meening of this template in this article. It refer to a subculture, his content come from peoples (skinheads) experiences and knowledge. It don't need any references from a book or documentary. Stevo 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't add the unreferenced tag, but I agree that all information on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by documented sources, no matter the topic. Almost all of the information in the skinhead article is backed up by sources in the References and External links sections. However, the person who put up the unreferenced tag probably wants certain sentences to have footnotes that go directly to the sources. That might be boring and take a long time, but it's a worthy goal to strive for.Spylab 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

American History X

From the article: "Anti-Heros (who sued the makers of American History X for wrongful use of their logo)".

This isn't in American History X, someone should cite a source for it. If it's a lawsuit, it shouldn't be that hard. --Anaraug 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• From what I've heard, the band's logo was used as a tattoo on the arm of one of the racist characters (I think Seth). The image was edited out after the lawsuit, so it's not in the DVD or TV versions. I'll check a search engine to see if I find anything. Spylab 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Spylab is right. The band sued New Line Cinema and won. They even wrote a song or two about it, including "NLC" and the intro to "Fuck Hollywood". Gainesstreetsaint 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. See here. Part Deux 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Skinhead → Skinheads — Consistency: most of the skinhead subgroup articles, and other subculture-related articles, use plural forms in the titles. Even the skinhead article uses the plural form in the first sentence and throughout most of the article. —Spylab 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC); relisting by Part Deux 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose. The naming conventions for articles (WP:NC#Prefer singular nouns and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)) says we should only use plurals when they are used exclusively, for example scissors or trousers. If skinheads are capable of being singular then the article should have a singular title. -Will Beback · † · 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reason. Mitsos 20:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Foreign Baldies

The movie 'The Wanderers', which I think is set in the Bronx, 1963, features the gang the Foreign Baldies. They are clearly skinheads, but there is no explanation of them as a cultural phenomenon on this site. Did gangs like that exist, or were they just the invention of the 1970s filmmakers? Do tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.79.252.192 (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

• They were called the Fordham Baldies, which was the name of a real Bronx, New York gang. However, according to at least two sites, the "baldies" in the real-life gang's name has nothing to do with the length of their hair: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Fordham+Baldies%22&btnG=Search&meta= The filmmakers were using creative license by portraying the gang members as actually being bald, and they don't have anything to do with skinheads. And even if the real gang members did shave their heads, skinhead-ism is a subculture involving various elements, not just a hairstyle. Spylab 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bigotry/Nationalism from the get-go (a contradiction)

There are some claims within the article that seem to me to be at odds with one another: If the "hard mods became commonly known as skinheads by about 1968" and then "In the late 1960s, some skinheads (including black skinheads) had engaged in random violence against Pakistanis and other South Asian immigrants (an act known as Paki bashing in common slang)", why is the the claim made that "race, religion and national origin were never a part of being a skinhead"?

Since there is little to no time in the "late 1960's" in-between the ~1968 birth of the Skins and when Paki-bashing began, I modified the text to read

While opinions on race, religion, and national origin were unifying components of some skinhead gangs, today there are many people within the skinhead subculture who have a wide variety of political and sociological ideologies.

Seekue 10:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the better thing to do is just delete the whole sentence, since it is not backed up by a reference. Spylab 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the word random to the phrase "...some skinheads (including black skinheads) had engaged in random violence against..." because it means they chose a random person on the street to beat up based on their ethnicity, instead of beating them up for some specific personal reason (i.e. the person owed them money, slept with their girlfriend, stole their belongings etc.). They didn't go out and say, "There's so-and-so, I'm going to kick his ass." They picked a random Asian and beat him up for the hell of it.Spylab 13:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I added a citation. The paragraph should not just go away because it may put Skins in a bad light. The introduction of the entry should be honest about the fact that there were bigot Skins from the beginning, even if the idea that they were all just part of a fun-loving group of working class boot boys is more appealing.Seekue 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That citation was about a gang that started in 1977, which is about a decade after the skinhead subculture started, so it did not back up the statement about "early skinheads." It's not a matter of deleting content that puts skinheads in a bad light or a good light; the rest of the article delves into all the sociopolitical issues and doesn't attempt to change history. It's a matter of having accurate content backed up by references. As it stands, the intro has too much generalization and unencyclopedic language. I am now going to try to make it more formal and neutral.Spylab 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• The same citation I used is also used later in the wiki article with mention of Paki-bashing. Specifically that it took place in the late 60's. Please note the following quotes from my cited article:

Paki-bashing during the late Sixties was very much of its time

“People harp on about the old days and in the Sixties and stuff like that with the reggae music,” says Paul Burnley. “Even back then there were racist skinheads, but not so much affiliated to political parties."

The facts show that nationalism and/or bigotry was part of the early Skin subculture. Sure it may be embarrassing, but them are the brass tacks. I look forward to see where you go with the article, but do not ignore that there were "original Skinheads" who were bigots.Seekue 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I concede your point about that reference, and in no way am I ignoring that some (not all) of the 1960s skinheads were bigots — like many British people in general at that time. As you can see, I deleted POV-ish phrases like "brotherhood/sisterhood" because that seemed to be too much editorializing. However, from what I've read (including in posts on message boards by people who were actually part of the 1960s skinhead scene) and seen in documentary videos, anti-Asian violence was not a big focus of the skinhead subculture at that time. It seems that the focus was mostly on things like fashion, music, football, girls, alcohol; and that most of the fighting was against other skinheads or people from other subcultures, not random people based on their ethnicity. Spylab 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It would be better to frame the issue as skinheads being about as racist (and not racist) as the rest of British working class society. Putting them in a broader social context removes the pressure somewhat while maintaining accuracy and full disclosure. Yes, some Skinheads were racist, but because British working class people in the 60s tended to be racist.

The futility of "most skinheads are..." statements

I'm removing the part:

although as early as 1970 there were already many skinheads in the White Nationalist British National Front]].[4] Since then racist attitudes have become predominant in the skinhead sub-culture. Today most Skinheads are racist(even if they aren't all Neo-Nazi) although some skinheads remain apolitical or aligned to the Far Left.

The first (partial) sentence contradicts the first part of the sentence it's in. That's perfectly fine in the body text, but the introductory paragraph needs to be simple and general. If you think this information is significant (I don't, but it has a citation so I'll be openminded), why not expand on it and merge it into the History section?

The rest of the quote is subjective impression at most. It can't be substantiated, because it speaks of skinheads worldwide, and nobody with any authority has made an attempt even to define who is or isn't a skinhead in different parts of the world, let alone survey them on their political attitudes or any other characteristic. Thus "most skinheads are" statements are unsupportable. This has been discussed before, on the archived talk page; see Talk:Skinhead/archive_1#Demographics --Unconventional 14:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sviatoslav86 reverted these edits with the edit summary "Re-inserted FACTS. Including one which is backed up by a source."

Well, Sviatoslav86, let's talk about that "source" which I ignored earlier. It's a blurry YouTube clip of 0:25 duration which seems to be excerpted from a British documentary, based on the narrator's accent and tone. It shows an interminate number of young people, perhaps 20, marching with a police escort. Some are throwing Nazi salutes and shouting "Sieg Heil". It's not hard to identify at least some of the people as skinheads.

Unfortunately, it does nothing to establish the year as 1970, or that the skinheads are marching for the BNP. Those claims come only from the YouTube uploader Hora111, who claims to be 24 and Swedish and so couldn't know those facts first hand. There is no chain of verifiability here at all, hence it is a worthless source. In any event, you didn't address my argument that it belongs deeper in the body of the article, not in the introduction. I invited you to move it to the History section, but looking more closely I see it's already covered in the section following that.

As for the rest of the deletion, statements are not FACTS because you insist they are. Please respond to my argument above about why blanket statements classifying skinheads politically are unsupportable. If you have verifiable knowledge of worldwide skinhead demographics, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're just POV pushing. If you feel it's necessary, we can call in additional interested editors to join the discussion. --Unconventional 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Skinhead with scooter?

1. Why Scooter? 2. He has Hair on his head!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.165.251.60 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC). 3. That guy is me. Why the removal of pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.64.62 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Scooters were a mod tradition, and some skinheads have continued that tradition.
2. The guy's hair in that picture is actually shorter than the hair of most skinheads in the 1960s. The name skinhead doesn't mean members of the subculture have to be totally bald like Mr. Clean. It was not until the late 1970s or early 1980s that some skinheads started to totally shave their hair off, based on personal choice. Spylab 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 24 is defunct

footnote 24 to [[4]] is dead (or at least it is on my machine). Move to have it deleted or if the original poster can find a mirrored version. --hubare (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• That means the book Skinhead Nation is no longer online at that URL, so in the meantime, all references to that book should be changed to Marshall, George. Skinhead Nation. ST Publishing, 1996. ISBN-10: 1898927456, ISBN-13: 978-1898927457. That info comes from http://www.amazon.co.uk/Skinhead-Nation-George-Marshall/dp/1898927456. Spylab (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

MP3 site in external links

I removed the link to the mp3 website because it violates copyright law. Wikipedia guidelines say

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [5]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.[6].

Spylab (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hammerskinlogo.JPG

The image Image:Hammerskinlogo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pearson quote

I'd delete the Geoff Pearson quote. It's abstract, says little about skinheads, and is full of conjecture ("liberal conscience has seen nothing on earth like the Skinhead ... his clothing forced a neat closure to any critical thought"). The two political sections are already disproportionately long (reflecting public perceptions of skinhead more than the reality), so cutting these eight lines would bring it closer to balance. I left the paragraph in for now in case there are objections. Sluggoster (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the Pearson quote for the reason you expressed, and deleted some other similar opinionated/speculative content that doesn't really belong in a neutral encyclopedic article.Spylab (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding mainstream media's depiction of skinheads, does anybody have a link to that quote about "How would you feel if your picture was in the paper with the words 'Child Rapist' under it?" It describes what it's like when people assume all sorts of false things about you and your culture because that's what they read in the paper. Sluggoster (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fencewalkers

"Skinheads on either extreme of the political spectrum sometimes refer to [apolitical skins] as a fencesitter or fencewalker."

Fencewalker means more than this. An apolitical skinhead who gets along with everybody is a traditional skin, not a fencewalker. Often their personal views are known but they don't let politics get in the way of interpersonal relationships if the other guy is not an asshole. "I respect you until you disrespect me", as the saying goes.

A fencewalker is somebody who hangs out buddy-buddy with the white power guys most of the time, who seems to be fascinated by their culture (e.g., listens to Skrewdriver and RAC more than Agnostic Front and the Anti-Heroes), yet still claims to be non-racist. The implication is that he's lying (he is white power but he's not willing to say so), or something along those lines.

Condemned 84/Retaliator are sometimes considered a fencewalking band because their lyrics are nationalistic and contain themes popular in WP songs but they carefully avoid explicit racism. Does this mean they're white power but don't want to offend their fans who aren't? Or are they a non-WP band who just likes the aggression of their style? Who knows. The point is that they tread the line very close, and thus give the appearance of being fencewalkers. White people who tell pollsters they might vote for a black man but in reality they wouldn't are also a kind of fencewalker.

The other use of the term is somebody who hangs out with his WP buddies and claims to be for the white man, then goes to his SHARP buddies and claims to be non-racist. So he's lying to one of them or the other or both. More likely he's just saying whatever they want to hear. This flies against the skinhead value of integrity: you stand up for your own beliefs, you give the same answer to everybody who asks, and you know why you believe what you do. Most skins on either side respect somebody who does that even if he disagrees with him. Sluggoster (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted that sentence (and the bonehead sentence) because they are uncited slang terms. The terms are fairly common knowledge within the skinhead subculture, but since there is no proof, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article.Spylab (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The intro

It says in the intro: "They were really bad but they love puppies." What is the purpose of this sentence? It seems out of place and I think it should be removed. Benjaminmyklebust (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I see it already is.

What a whitewashed article

I don't see how you can have a huge section on how skinheads are quite often anti-racist or neutral while the article only hints at racist associations. Before you provide an "argument to the contrary" you at least have to talk about the initial argument.--67.170.107.184 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for this? --Unconventional (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

This article needs more pictures. -Axmann8 (Talk) 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Skinhed mowement in Russia

Thera are some articles, that most of worlds skinheads/neonazi live in Russia. (throught I don't find in english) Caucasian beats fat skinhead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-CsF0C5Xwg&mode=related&search=

• See www.tradskin.ru Vugluskr (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable Skinheads

It would help to have a descriptive phrase for each of these. Readers unfamiliar with the names will learn nothing. On that note, does anyone remember "Lefty," an African American woman skinhead who lived in D.C. in the 1980s? She was sort of "known" but I wasn't in the loop enough to know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlg4104 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted the section because it was unencyclopedic, uncited and totally based on personal opinion.Spylab (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lefty is mentioned several times in the book "Dance of Days: 20 Years of Punk in Our Nations Capital" so she has become rather infamous. It was a rather one sided book though, basically it was the story of Dischord records and their clique. They didn't get along with the skinheads. Most stories you've heard about Lefty are probably false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.201.145 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lefty is "known" for being a black woman who claims white power. She's still seen around D.C. occasionally. Not somebody I'd call "notable" though. --Unconventional (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't she rumored to have a swastika tattoo on her chest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.53.3.5 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several celebrities (I use the term loosely) who are/were skinheads, and what's more even admit to it. Obvious examples from music would be Suggs (Graham Macpherson), Buster Bloodvessel (Doug Trendle) and Jimmy Pursey (from Sham69); from film, the writer/director Shane Meadows; the photographer Nick Knight, and the actor/photographer Gavin Watson http://www.myspace.com/gavinwatsonskins.

There is also pictorial evidence that Paul O'Grady used to be a suedehead in the 1970s.

Nuttyskin (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

British music paper Sounds once printed a picture of former Motörhead drummer Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor wearing full skinhead gear (Sta-Prest, button-down shirt, haircut, DM's - the lot) in his early teens. Coll (unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.24.106 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

London, England

Crap Wiki entry, clearly written by an American. For a start, claiming that the Skinhead movement began in the "United Kingdom" is just too vague. There needs to be more information about the original east-London Skinheads of the late '60s. That's where it began and stayed for a number if years before it spread to the rest of the British isles. And if people outside the UK are going to comment on British culture, please try and get some basic facts correct. For instance, "Skinheads from the 70s marching for the BNP". The BNP wasn't formed until the early 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnosticM (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "There needs to be more information about the original east-London Skinheads of the late '60s. That's where it began and stayed for a number if years before it spread to the rest of the British isles".

To make that idiotic statement proves you couldn't have been around during the late 1960's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.43.124 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

GnosticM here, can't find my password. Please explain as to why that's an "idiotic statement"? And for your information, oh enlightened one, I was born in Walthamstow, Thorpe Coombe Hospital, in 1956. I was there, and I bet you weren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.231.238 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I added link to a book, "Skinhead" by Nick Knight. So anybody can trace the subculture back to the roots. Vugluskr (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire, England

Agree it's a dodgy wiki - but Skinhead happened pretty much in W. Yorks independently of London. The Ska/Reggae was a huge part of it, but so was Paki-bashing. Impossible to say that it wasn't racist, but equally impossible to say that the Skinhead phenomenon didn't do a great deal to promote access to black music - because it did.

Skinheads have periodically had revivals - more than most movements, and with each one it gets a little more confusing. The para-military styles of the late 70's, early 80's were far less creative in their attitudes - and generally purely about racism. But it all gets confusing at arms length. Also never forget the influence of football violence in all of this. The "gangs" that you might see in the US for example are largely absent in UK, because here it's all tied up with football crews. In the first skinhead era (roughly 68 to 76) though there were several geographically located gangs associated with skinheads in my area. From memory I'd go White Lee Skins, Spen Suedes, and Dale Lane Mafia as being key in West Yorkshire (it was very localised - Leeds & Bradford were seen as distant), and remember seeing large Northern Ireland style wall painting marking out home territory - all a little difficult though since most violence tended to happen around football matches, and local gangs could quite easily comprise supporters of several different teams - and the football took priority.

I'm also aware that Skinhead has meant something different in the US - I believe it's a term that used to be applied to certain US Marines - who went to extremes with their haircuts, and their militaristic attitudes

78.32.193.115 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could you be thinking of the term 'jarhead' for the US Marines? 'Skinhead' is sometimes applied to people with short hair/shaved heads in the US, irrespective of any subcultural association, but I don't recall it ever being applied specifically to US Marines any time in the last 40 years. Conversely, I've had a number of skinhead friends who were in the US Army, but for them 'skinhead' is a subcultural identification, not a metonym for 'soldier'. -- Unconventional (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ey up, a voice from Yorkshire here. You can say what you like and its your experience of Skinhead times your talking about.

But c'mon....."The para-military styles of the late 70's, early 80's were far less creative in their attitudes - and generally purely about racism."

Yorkshire early 80's yeh The Burial, The Redskins, Skin Deep. These are the bands who were challenging racism within the Skinhead movement.

As for the U.S there have been some great bands such as The Press but Skinhead to the yanks it's all about the haircut and the bogeyman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmajam (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Um...what are you saying, exactly? Does "all about the haircut" mean you think we're all fashion skins? If so, you're wrong; many of us don't crop our hair. The only US skins I know of to whom fashion is of the essence are clueless schoolboys and gayskins. The closest thing to a defining characteristic across all (non-clueless) US skinheads is working class pride. (Well, maybe a love of aggro, too.) As for the "bogeyman", I'm not sure what that means to you Brits. To me, that's a mythical monster used to frighten little kids; I can't even guess what you think that has to do with Skinhead. Unconventional (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the way Skinheads are portrayed and perceived by non- Skinheads in the U.S. and not at the Skinheads themselves.Plasmajam (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

hair style

Shouldnt it be mentioned somewhere that the skin head hairstyle, super short, is called a skin head even when not on a skin head culture person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Monkey Jackets

To the person who said there is no such thing as a monkey jacket, see the following link: http://www.modrevival.net/MonkeyJacket.jpg They have been worn by mods and skinheads. Spylab (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have called that a Golf Jacket.

Though apparently that is what Americans call a Harrington.

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the North of England we had skinheads galore, - It's a Harrington. You would however have Monkey Boots - which were a poor mans Dr Martins, which younger kids wore because the DMs didn't come in smaller sizes. The differences between Skins, suedes, mods, and just general scallies are very subtle. We also had Crombie boys - who didn't necessarily have the short hair. Harringtons were what you wore whilst your Crombie was at the dry cleaners.

78.32.193.115 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not a Harrington, it's like a late 60's tracksuit top. I don't know where in the north you lived, but no one I knew ever used the term "Crombie Boy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.38.224 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that monkey jackets are different from Harringtons, as the this Google image search link shows:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22monkey+jacket%22&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=854&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=PEYkUL2mHc226QHcwYDoAw

In comparison, here is a link to a google image search for "Harrington jacket": http://www.google.ca/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=854&q=Harrington+jacket&oq=Harrington+jacket&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1596.7394.0.7833.21.12.2.7.7.0.94.1013.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.LYQp376IQB4

The most noticeable difference is the collars and cuffs.Spylab (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Footwear

Doc Martens are still made in England. They are also made in China, Indonesia, Taiwan. Please correct the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypobusa (talk • contribs) 11:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Footwear

Hypobusa (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Doc Martens are still made in England. They are also made in China, Indonesia, Taiwan. Please correct the page.

Article written by skinheads

This is a shameful article. Skinheads are mostly chauvinists and fascists, neo- or not, violent and criminal, even in smallest of their communities in smallest countries, and this article talks about "culture". --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• A group of people who identify with each other in mentality, dress sense, ideology, etc is culture whether you approve of it or not. Could you point out specifically what is shameful? We have an article on Nazism too. Perhaps you'd call it shameful accuse the article contributors of being Nazis too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Skinhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217000127/http://www.reggaereggaereggae.com:80/Special%20Articles.htm to http://www.reggaereggaereggae.com/Special%20Articles.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029203605/http://www.abc.net.au:80/arts/visual/stories/sharpies_index.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/arts/visual/stories/sharpies_index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317152651/http://www.stuffmagazine.com:80/articles/index.aspx?id=1519 to http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/index.aspx?id=1519
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328095835/http://www.thespecials.com:80/history3.php to http://www.thespecials.com/history3.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090830192607/http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk:80/oi/ to http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Traditional skinheads

The political part talks about how 'traditional' skinheads call certain other skinheads various names based on their political views, but it doesn't explain what 'traditional' skinheads are political wise Nil Einne 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Traditional skinheads are more concerned about the music, clothing, football and socializing aspect of the skinhead subculture. They generally keep their personal political beliefs (whether left or right) out of the skinhead scene, other than the occasional rant among friends, like any other type of person. Most of them are patriotic though, although even that isn't an absolute necessity. See Trojan skinhead and Spirit of 69 for some more info. Spylab 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember skinheads starting in Australia circa 1969. They were not a cultural movement, just violent street gangs in the impoverished suburbs of Sydney and Melb. The older bodgies and widgies (c.f. Teddy Boys) fought each other. Skinheads picked on passers-by in more gentile suburbs as the western suburbs residents were highly capable fighters; even the 80yr old grannies.220.240.251.114 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Skinheads in Russia

Why was the link to the article about the Russian skinheads removed? This is a verbatim quote from the recently released Human Rights Watch report:

In 2006 there were at least 439 racially-motivated attacks, including the stabbing of a nine-year-old Tajik girl. Forty-four of these attacks resulted in the victim’s death. Most often the perpetrators of these violent acts are groups of young men and women who profess a neo-fascist ideology and are known as "Neo-Nazis" or "skinheads".(see page 19)

. --Kober^Talk 15:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian skinheads aren't Neo-nazis. Just look at DMOZ! 79.164.88.242 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they are, they just don't call themselves Neo-Nazis b/c their grandparents spent all of WWII supposedly fighting the Nazis. It makes things awkward at the dinner table when Babushka says to skinhead grandson, "So... you a Nazi, now? Your granddad was hung by one of them." Good to be able to say you're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Skinhead. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ska.about.com/musicperform/ska/library/1999/aa081699a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ska.about.com/musicperform/ska/library/1999/aa081699a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517120143/http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/rhkiw.htm to http://www.themilkfactory.co.uk/interviews/rhkiw.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

21st century

Would it be wrong to say that Skinheads still exist? Whilst the article talks about the 60s and 70s, I'm pretty sure there are those groups which share similar ideas and might even attack non-White British citizens.

You do see us around, here and there. Not just old guys and proper geezers like me, but young people, too. The clothes have come back into fashion, partially assisted by the Hipsters, but the scene itself may seem invisible, because new converts are reluctant to cut their hair (the most recognisable identifier for the style cult, although it's never been essential), for fear of being mis-identified as a racist. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Get real

A lot of verbage here covering a group of people who know damn well they have a racist agenda. They wouldn't shave their skulls and wear knee-high boots if they didn't want to advertise to someone else their shady intention. For all practical purpose they're assholes.

I like your logic. By the same token, as Muslims often wear beards and the same clothing as terrorists, that must mean they're all suicide bombers-in-waiting, even the ones who profess not to be.

Is that really what you're saying? Or does the logic only apply to groups of people you've decided are worthy of your hatred? Nuttyskin (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Uh call me crazy but weren't there skinheads in the 19th century? I've actually heard this from a skinhead. Can anyone verify this? 71.68.17.141 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• The skinhead subculture started in England in the 1960s. Any other claims or theories are untrue. Spylab 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Working-class lads in the 19th and early 20th centuries were masculine and violent, wore scally caps, hung out at the pub with their brothers, and suffered poverty and disrespect. Just like skinheads. Actually it's the other way round, skinhead is an imitation of a working-class ideal that was already disappearing in the 1960s. Skins wore braces and tank tops because their grandfathers - coal miners and laborers -- did. They wanted to keep the working class spirit alive. But the shaved head and reggae music and skinhead identity were new inventions in the 1960s. For examples of skinhead-like people in the early 20th century, see Dick in "Flambards" (miniseries), and Billy Bathgate. For the 19th century, see Charles Dickens. Sluggoster (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What bollocks seeing as skinheads started in London/South East where are these coal-mines you speak off?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.144.8 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dick Hebdige in his Subculture: The Meaning of Style mentions skinheads as essentially a caricature of the type of the noble worker, both in style (or anti-style) and somewhat in outlook. Whether this caricature is deliberately a subversion/inversion of the value system of that working class archetype, or an un-ironic celebration of the same, is unclear.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to mister Whatbollocks: Early London skins were the offspring of dockers. Labourers, like the guy above said. Pollythewasp (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Polly the Poshgirl they weren't all the offspring of dockers but anyway what has that to do with miners? You must be American as you obviously have no idea about England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Skinhead came from mod with some Jamaican influence, not all skinheads shaved there heads in the late 60's and even then it was only usually to a number 2. It was just a name and used as an insult at first. Skinhead style was not based off the stereotypical working class image, braces were used to keep your trousers and jeans up seeing as jeans and trousers were higher waisted back then.

Skinhead started in London but it spread to other parts of the country, some of these lads may of been on mining apprenticeships or worked in a factory but it had nothing to do with looking working class, it was just a working class subculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.51.21 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Skinhead. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126093133/http://www.modculture.co.uk/culture/archive.php?category=modscenepast to http://www.modculture.co.uk/culture/archive.php?category=modscenepast
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505014805/http://www.skinhead.no/content/articles/richardallen.asp to http://www.skinhead.no/content/articles/richardallen.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skinhead. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424044649/http://blasphemyritual.com/bms_tshirts.html to http://blasphemyritual.com/bms_tshirts.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

There's a sentence fragment in the 4th paragraph and I'm not sure if the comma should go before or after "According to Bill Osgerby..." 71.231.64.147 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Removed fragment. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)