Talk:Riot Grrrl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class. |
Contents |
[edit] no mention of...
This is useless without the mention of Courtney Love and or Hole. Plus, how could you forget the GITS?? Hello!! Mia Zapata?. (unsigned comment left by User:Vancejamal)
- It is somewhat hard to say what defines a band or individual as having been part of the riot grrl movement. Courtney Love did not play shows with bands that were part of the movement, did not participate in the zine conference, and in fact was antagonistic to many of the people involved in the movement. As far as I know, the Gits did not participate in the movement either. --Larrybob 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Do those photos add anything to the article? Their placement is certainly dreadful. -- Jwrosenzweig
Hope you like my changes to the pictures. I like the article. What do you think about the classification of Riot Grrrl as a feminist political/musical movement rather than as just a style of music? There was certainly a lot more going on during Riot Grrrl than just music. --Dwiki 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "riot grrl" vs. "riot grrrl"
most of the girls i know who were involved and invested in it during its heyday prefer the spelling "riot grrrl." even within this entry, we don't use a consistent spelling. would anyone support moving this entry to "riot grrrl" and leaving "riot grrl" as a redirect? (i'm willing to do the clean-up, if so.) - Esk
"riot grrrl" has 20,900 Google hits "riot grrl has 31,800 Google hits Saul Taylor 15:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
hm, yeah, "grrl" seems to be more common now on the internet. but it's been my impression that it was a later mutation of "grrrl." considering how quickly r.g. was co-opted and made into an "almost meaningless media catchphrase," i dunno how meaningful that statistic is. some links:
article by mimi nguyen, from punk planet #40, late 2000 "riot grrrl" by kathleen hanna, from bikini kill zine #2 (?), early '90s riot grrrl retrospective museum collection, from seattle's experience music project current incarnations of the riot grrrl dc and riot grrrl nyc chapters academic bibliography and resources focused on "grrrl zines" Esk 00:10, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
According to Carol Adams in The Sexual Politics of Meat (ISBN 0826411843) animal rights are a gender issue. Hyacinth 03:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Riot_grrl"
[edit] riot grrrl in Portuguese
I translated for the Portuguese some parts of this text.
Ana
[edit] sources
Would be good to find more references - in particular the bands identified as "Riot Grrrl." It'd be a bad idea to assume that just because a radical punk band from a certain time period has female members that they neccessarily identify with Riot Grrrl or all of its critiques... ENpeeOHvee 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Riot Grrrl is one of hardest-to-define concepts and hardest-to-apply labels to bands. However, I am of the opinion that most of the bands listed here are fairly quintessential to the movement. Absolutely, though - the Internet needs a fact-checked resource on Riot Grrrl. --Dwiki 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
Should the G be capitalized? Wiki Wikardo 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the thingy about influences
they are all sourced - from various interviews, zines, and reviews, i just don't remember from wheres - like aretha franklin might sound odd, but i've heard her mentioned as an influence in 3 separate riot grrrl interviews, one w/ kathleen hanna, one w/ corin tucker, and one w/ nikki of huggy bear - they're all important, and they're all artists that in some cases i wouldn't even have heard of if not for these zines and interviews, so the idea should be to look for the sources (which believe me, do exist) instead of chopping em off to sacrifice to the evil gods of the "citation needed nazis". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.86.134 (talk)
- They might "have sources" but they're not sourced as of yet. It's not things like Aretha Franklin that I'm worried about. It's things like Thee Headcoatees, which, tho they're a good band, I highly doubt they can be said to have been an influence on riot grrrl. Contemporaries, definitely, but influence? Doubtful. When you have a long list with vague citations, you end up getting "listcreep" where random names get inserted that aren't necessarily right or appropriate. People tend to scrutinize a long list a lot less cuz when you see that block of text, a lot of people's eyes glaze over and don't look that closely. It's vaguely tolerable when people who have some knowledge are watching the article, but it can turn ugly once they stop watching and the article tends to get progressively less accurate. And I've seen people try to pass some outlandish names into that list.
like who, (just askin, not arguing)?
- The list section that bugs me the most actually is the bit in "Legacy" where it basically says that any independent female band is necessarily a continuation of riot grrrl. I think if a band's going to be included in that list they should have a source that says they were actually influenced by riot grrrl instead of just assuming. Just assuming qualifies as original research. Although, really, a lot of this article qualifies as original research.
yeah, thats why i changed it so it doesn't say those bands are "riot grrrl" necessarily, it just says "many of the diy elements promoted by the movement endure". there were plenty of all-women bands in the period even who were plenty independent and political like 7 year bitch or spitboy, they just didn't identify with the label, they saw it as uncomfortably "separatist" or "divisionary", which i think someone should add, maybe right below the part in the ipu con section where it lists the other bands associated therewiths. i didnt put that section in there anyways, i just put in "revolution grrrl style now", ipu con, concerts and conflict (nice alliteration, eh?), and riot grrrl in fiction
- Also, I just don't think it makes for a good article just having that list there. It seems like every band that any member of a riot grrrl band cited as influencing them is getting put into there. It'd be much better to prune it to a few artists that are commonly cited and explain why or how they might've influenced riot grrrl. If there's going to be a long list, it should go towards the end of the article or maybe even in a separate article IMO. It's not a bad intention to want to pass along bands that you think are good or whatever, but the point of the article is to talk about riot grrrl.
- As for the "citation needed nazis", expect to find a lot of them, as it is Wikipedia policy. See WP:A. The only way to ensure an accurate article is for it to be well-cited, and the only way readers are going to know if the article is accurate is if it's well-cited. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
also the article is gettin kinda long, (speaking as the person who put all that stuff there), the only thing i can really think to cut would be the bios on bk and bratmobile, which don't really belong there anyway, someing else should be put there tho, i don't mean just cut it, there was plenty of stuff said in the don't need you herstory of riot grrrl doc which could go there much more betterly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.86.134 (talk)
- Well, an obvious solution to the length problem is to trim the lists or move them elsewhere... (especially the zine section which is really long)
yeah i know, it was just to make that point that it really was an "explosion"
- I don't think cutting out sections on BK and Bratmobile is a good idea. Just keep a bit about how they're relevant to the riot grrrl movement.
- Seems to me that the biggest space-waster in the article is the really long quotes. I think you could keep what the quotes are trying to say but just keep the part that's the heart of what's being said and cut some of the excess.
- Just a random point, but could you sign your comments with the four ~ tilde things? It lets others know who's saying what without having to comb through the page history. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
i don't know how
