Talk:Crass/Archive 1

Archive 1

76-77-76-77

Ugh! Why are Crass's own words of self-importance on the Crass page? I thought this was an "encyclopedia," not an autobiography.

Would the person who posted the laborious "liner notes" please remove them, or at least edit, edit, edit...

Thank you. 15:52, 31 August 2002‎ (UTC) 165.121.124.29

Because it's the history of the group and what they achieved in their own words? 17:15, 31 August 2002‎ (UTC) Quercusrobur

replaced Crass history with a link to external site with the same text. 01:55, 1 September 2002‎ (UTC) Quercusrobur

Date of formation

to those who keep changing the date of crass' formation to 1976, please note the following from their website at http://www.southern.com/southern/band/CRASS/

"Steve and Penny had been writing and playing together since early '77, but it wasn't until Summer of that year that we had begged, borrowed and stolen enough equipment to actually call ourselver a band....CRASS."quercus robur

But the page of 1976 in music said Crass was recording their demos first before they formed in 1977. 01:48, 26 February 2003‎ (UTC) 64.175.250.115

<sigh> thats because some clown who doesn't know what they are talking about has changed it from 1977 in music- again! quercus robur

I would be interested to know where the apparently persistent idea that Crass formed in 1976 comes from. According to Crass' own biography & website they clearly state that they formed in 77. This is also stated in Penny Rimbaud's autobiography, and their first demo, fragments of which appear on the live part of 'Christ the Album', was recorded in 'summer 1977'. quercus robur 08:26, 26 February 2003 (UTC)

It now says that they formed in 1977 but recorded their first demos in 1976. Unless there's something faulty with my understanding of what it is to "form", this isn't possible, so I'm reverting it. If Michael wants to explain this, he's welcome to do so (but he doesn't seem to be the most talkative fellow, unfortunately). --Camembert

It's true, they really did do their demos in 1976 before they started forming 1977, sir. Do not erase it when I write it again. --Michael

Where do you get the idea from that Crass recorded demo's in 1976 when according to Rimbaud's autobiography he did not even meet Steve Ignorant until 1977? BTW I'll be speaking to Gee Vaucher later this evening, if I remeber I'll ask and get this matter settled once and for all. quercus robur 19:25, 8 March 2003 (UTC)

Micheal- do you know anything at all about Crass? It certainly doesn't look like it, but whether you do or not, please do not attribute abusive comments to myself or camembert, who generally speaking know what we are talking about (I have been personal friends with Crass since 1979) and do not feel the need to become abusive or rude to others or alter other users comments in order to change their content or context. I would advise you also find out a little about your subject matter before making alterations to articles. One more citation for you, from the sleeve of Bullshit Detector volume 1: "Sometime in 1977 Rimbaud and Ignorant started messing around with a song called 'owe us a living'. They ran through it a few times and decided to form a band consisting of themselves. They called themselves Crass".

Now please either cite a reliable reference that Crass were recording demo's 'before they formed' in 1976 or leave the page alone. Thank you quercus robur 20:01, 8 March 2003 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of the demos of 1976. --Michael

No. Tuf-Kat

No, there were no demos in 76. Rimbaud & Ignorant DID NOT EVEN MEET UNTIL 1977!!!!quercus robur

Where did you hear about these 1976 demos, Michael? Perhaps this is an urban myth - in which case Wikipedia should document it... Martin

More like a Michael myth- if there were an urban myth about a 1976 Crass demo I'm sure I would have heard it, having followed the band since 1978 and known them personally since about 1979. I also did my own internet search, nothing. However if Michael can point us to a reliable source of this urban myth (yes I know that is a contradiction, I'm being tongue in cheek...) I'd be happy to stand corrected quercus robur 18:05, 14 March 2003 (UTC)

OK! Fine! - Michael

micheal, give it up with the 76 demo shit, the joke is wearing thin now. quercus robur

Oh, good lord, Michael has a new name. -- Zoe

I'm not Weezer --Michael (paraphrased)

I'm not Michael --Weezer (paraphrased)

Guess you're right. Maybe they did not record demos in 1976. I think they wrote songs in the year. -- Weezer

Nope. Read my lips, RIMBAUD AND IGNORANT DID NOT EVEN MEET UNTIL 1977!!!!!!! quercus robur 13:27, 6 April 2003 (UTC)

Guess that, Rimbaud or Ignorant must written songs in 1976 before knowing each other in 1977. But how did you know that they met in 1977? - Weezer

Penny Rimbaud is a personal friend of mine, and he told me, that's how I know. See also below. BTW, no they didn't write songs before 1977. In Rimbauds autobiography he states that 'So what' was the first song Steve Ignorant ever wrote. Rimbaud may have written stuff before Crass, but that in no way means that Crass existed before 1977. I wrote stuff when I was at school, that doesn't mean I was contributing to Wikipedia in 1977. Geez you are hard work Michael. why don't you just drop it now? quercus robur 18:06, 6 April 2003 (UTC)

Is this a ploy to get Crass' phone number or something? Sorry but you'll have to take my word that I've spoken to Penny Rimbaud and he's confirmed that, in line with his autobiography, the official Crass website, the sleeves of a number of Crass records and just about everything else ever written about Crass by anybody except Michael & 'weezer', there was no such thing as 'Crass' before 1977. In fact they were originally called Stormtrooper when they first formed, but quickly changed the name as it was 'a bit fascist sounding'. quercus robur 13:34, 6 April 2003 (UTC)

Protection

Perhaps Crass and Talk:Crass should be protected... this is getting irritating. -- goatasaur

I agree quercus robur 21:46, 14 April 2003 (UTC)

Me too Slrubenstein

talk pages shouldn't be protected - unprotecting - and listing on wikipedia:protected page. Martin

Agreed in general, it was just temporary during a bout of Weezer/Michael attack... got two others to go unprotect, too. -- John Owens

Hmm, the article page here is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page as "protecting from persistant vandalism", but it wasn't protected earlier today before I did that. Which state should it be in? And shall we change Wikipedia:Protected page to reflect this? -- John Owens 00:00, 15 April 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was you that added it, just then. That clears that up, a bit. -- John Owens

Michael/Weezer's mum seems to have sent him to bed now, perhaps it's safe to unprotect Crass now? quercus robur 00:05, 15 April 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'd already done that, now that he seemed to have gone away for the moment. -- John Owens

Yeah, when you protect/unprotect a page, add/remove it to/from the list. :) Martin

Danny

Just to clarify, it appears that Michael/Weezer has signed my name to some of his comments here. I have nothing to do with those comments. It was someone else using my user name. Danny

Phone conversation

I've just had a phone conversation with Gee Vaucher during which I asked her whether Pete Wright was ever a member of a band called Trapeze- her reply was not to the best of her knowledge... quercus robur 19:07, 17 May 2003 (UTC)

NB. Just for the record, I've just spent three days at Dial House with ex members of Crass, who confirmed that Pete Wright was definately never in a band called trapeze, he was in 'some folk band' nobody can remeber the name of, but who never made any records or achieved any sort of fame. He was also the only member of Crass ever to have been in a band before being in Crass, apart from Penny Rimbaud and Gee Vaucher who had been in a performance art group called 'Exit'. quercus robur 21:25, 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Great page

I think this has evolved into a great page! Nice work, everybody! However, I think the second paragraph in "origins" really needs work. Somebody who feels close to it want to edit that? heidimo 18:49, 17 January 2004 (UTC)

Stratford Mercenaries

BTW I edited down your refernce to Stratford Mercenaries as I thought this would belong more on the Steve Ignorant page or indeed an article on the band themselves if one gets started. Cheers quercus robur 11:26, 1 April 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a go at it. I think I'm going to give Thatcher Gate its own article because it belongs under hoaxes.-- Reverend Distopia

Thachergate

I thought I might as well give this its own subject headline.

No one has contributed to this in over a year! Anyone notice the lack of the Thatchergate Tapes? Those should be linked to both Crass and Hoaxes sections! Anyone have access to said tapes? I know they exist.

I edit this article fairly frequently (certainly within the last year!) and try to keep an eye on it for vandalism, etc- yup the Thatchergate Tapes should definately be included, I've been meaning to integrate them into the text for some time now, but it will probably mean rewriting the relevant paragraph somewhat, so I havn't done it as yet. The text of the tapes is here http://www.southern.com/southern/label/CRC/1238.html feel free to have a crack at adding something yourself!

Ok, I added a Thatchergate link, but the Thachergate article still needs to be added. Are we happy with where I stuck the paragraph? I put it under Direct Action.-- Reverend Distopia

Missing things

things currently missing from this article that need to be integrated in;

• Stonehenge 1980 when Crass and punks at the festival were attacked by bikers. Ironic as Rimbaud had helped to set up the festival in the first place!
• "Bloody Revolutions" benefit single for the 1979 'Persons Unknown' trial, which raised money to set up the Wapping anarchist Centre, also vioelce from SWP at the Persons Unknown benefit gig at the Conway Hall.
• More about attempted prosecution by Tim Eggar for "How Does It Feel"
• Obscenity charges for Penis Envy, whcih also involved Flux of Pink Indians and Dead Kennedys
• VAT problems

quercus robur 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.furious.com/perfect/crass.html

Direct Action, 'Thatchergate' and internal debates - NPOV debate

Vandalism

Sorry, but spray painting messages onto property that you don't own, without permission of the owners is vandalism. And it's not POV to say so. I seriously doubt that band members of CRASS has permission to place graffitti on the london underground. Their "art" wasted tax payer funds for it's removal, thus diverting resources that could have been used for other purposes. This article should not glorify acts of petty criminality, by ascribing to them greater signifigance. 128.84.178.99 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should not glorify acts of petty criminality, by ascribing to them greater signifigance. This is your POV, even though many people share it. My POV, also shared by many others, is that, much like Banksy, who they predated by some 20 odd years, their graffiti was subversive, made urban environments more interesting, challenged advertising stereotypes and made people think. However such personal opinions should be left out of it as its not appropriate on wikipedia. The article should be kept NPOV, and simply stick to the facts. quercus robur

Agree with Quercusrobur - just as one person's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter', so too one person's post-situationist detournment of the urban landscape is another's mindless vandalism... just stick to the facts, ma'am, just stick to the facts, as the three blind men said to the elephant's leg.... 82.34.177.22 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vadalising the subway was not subversive, does not make urban environments more interesting, and certainly does not challenged advertising stereotypes or make people think. All it does was waste tax payer money, and violate laws against vandalism. It is infact profoundly disrespectful to the working people who pay taxes to support public services. It was vandalism by any definition. And it's not POV or non factual to say so. 128.253.214.55 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is your point of view. I have mine, you have yours. Both should be kept out of an NPOV article. quercus robur 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that CRASS did not vandalise the London Underground by spray painting political grafitti without permission? 132.236.176.165 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it vandalism, but thats not the point. I'm not really interested in debating this, just ensuring that the article remains nuetral by avoiding loaded terms such as 'vandalism' which only reflect one particular point of view. quercus robur 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At least you are honest about being intellectually dishonest. Vandalism is the exact and factual definition of what CRASS did on the london subways. Vandalism is not a loaded term, it is the course of action that members of CRASS did. I fail to see how this POV, the extant article smacks of buffing and whitewashing in that it weasels out of using plain english to describe its subject matter.. 128.84.178.102 10:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the term 'graffitti' can be described as 'weaseling', 'buffing' or 'whitewashing'. Its a factual term describing the act of spraying a message on a public wall. Its also a nuetral term. 'Vandalism' on the other hand reflects a point of view. What would be 'weaseling' would be something like; Crass sprayed graffitti on a tube station wall. Some considered this to be an act of vandalism, others however described this act as artistic and political subversion. It would be a shame if the article went in this direction though, at the moment it seems relatively 'tight' and to the point for a wikipedia article. 82.34.177.22 13:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

have added NPOV tag as an anon user insists on contantly re-inserting loaded and POV comments into this article, see 'vandalism' discussion above. It would be good if a 'third party' could look at this passage and decide whether the term 'vandalism' is appropriate in this context, bearing in mind the arguemnts already laid out above (and notwithstanding the personal attacks made) quercus robur 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You seriously think that describing spray painting graffiti in a subway station as vandalism is "loaded and POV"? 128.253.214.55 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. That is why I asked for third parties to comment and help to create a consensus, or else this will go nowhere apart from turning into an edit war. quercus robur 10:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Webster's dictionary. [1] Vandalism is defined as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property". Do you honestly beleive CRASS did not engage in willful defacement of public property? 128.84.178.83 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my case. You and I will not reach consensus on this, hence the NPOV tag so that some third party can decide whether the term 'vandal' is appropriate in this context. quercus robur 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be in denial about if CRASS's actions meet the definition of vandalism. I think it would be healthy for you if you would explain how spray painting political slogan's in a subway satation is not willful defacement of public property. 128.253.214.55 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in further discussion with you, the section has been NPOV tagged, some one else can decide who is right and who is wrong on this. quercus robur 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PS, I've just looked at your edit history, seems you have a history of trolling, vandalism and POV additions to articles with the intention of causing arguements. Sorry, life is too short for me to indulge you quercus robur 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PPS, so you admit that you can't defend CRASS, because what they did on the london subways was vandalism and [b]you know it[/b]! 128.253.214.55 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm wading into this, but I would feel that the word 'vandalism' would be appropriate if the object of the action was the devaluation of that which was being acted upon or in having no relevance achieved the same effect. "Joanie loves Chachi" scrawled on a wall is much different than a political slogan stenciled in on the Berlin Wall. The former would be vandalism, the latter may very well not be. This is, of course, open to subjective argument, and as a result I would caution against its inclusion in this article. The use of public space for the message was itself *part* of the message, even if I may not myself be in particular agreement with the message itself. Saint Mahone 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think vandalism is the correct NPOV way to describe CRASS actions since they did deface public property. Their stated reasons for doing so don't affect what members of the band actually did. Mohammed al-Khawal 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote no for vandalism. Their intent wasn't destructive, which is the implication of the loaded term. --Switch 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Did they deface public property with thier grafitti? 128.84.178.82 09:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Was it 'vandalism' when the Berlin Wall was graffited in 1989 or was that an expression of freedom from oppression? Guess it depends on your point of view, but that was public proiperty as well. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is for wikipedia to judge, only to give the facts, not to say our opinions one way or the others 82.34.177.22 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The berlin wall was public property, people were defacing it, it was vandalism. That is a fact. CRASS defaced london subway stations, london subway stations are public property, ergo CRASS vandalised thwe subway stations. That is a fact, Wikipedia is supposed to report facts. 128.253.214.55 11:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No its a point of view. Vote 'no' to including the word vandalism in this article. The whole subject as to whether graffitti is art, political comment or vandalism might be better discussed at the graffitti article but doesn't belong here 88.109.211.167 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the people opposing the use of the word vandalism have answered the question of "Did CRASS deface public property with their grafitti?" Mohammed al-Khawal 10:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's a question of their Point of View. PhilipPage 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I consider this, the more I lean against using the word here. There is sometihng of a loaded connotation to the word 'graffiti' which I don't believe applies. Equating it as such- 'definition A' meets 'situation B'- would be little different from telling me that putting my terminally ill dog down last week was 'murder.' Saint Mahone 00:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford defines "vandalism" as the "deliberate destruction or damaging of property". Crass didn't deliberately destroy or damage, so that's not vandalism. Whether or not graffiti is vandalism is not a case for this article. Once a general consensus on whether or not graffiti is vandalism has been reached, you can argue that, but not until then. --Switch 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has removed the 'NPOV' tag, and the troll who started this 'debate' seems to have moved on elsewhere, so can we take it as read that the NPOV tag does not belong on the section in question? quercus robur 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NO, Crass did damage the london underground by vandalising it with political grafitti. They deliberately spray painted messages on the walls of the subway. Since their actions were not authorised by the administrators of the subway system, their defacement is vandalism. I'm really confused by why so many people are having a hard time with basic english on wikipedia. Mohammed al-Khawal 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one having trouble with English, mate. They did not deliberately damage the underground, because A) Whether or not it was "damaged" (caused physical harm reducing the value, operation, or usefulness) is POV; B) "deliberately" implies intent, and their intent was not to damage, it was a political message. I don't see why you don't get it. --Switch 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Why have all of my photos of Crass been deleted???? These were my pictures, used under gnu license and they've all disapperaed without any warning. I tried to restore one deleted image with no success, would the responsible person please sort this out???? quercus robur 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops looks like it was a wikipedia glitch, everything is back as it was.. quercus robur

Infobox

Have changed the image in the infobox to the Crass logo, I felt this was more appropriate as the band always argued strongly against the 'cult of the individual', and always prefered to be represented by their 'corporate logo', as it were, than by photos of the band. Hope this is OK? quercus robur 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. I was going to use the logo originally, but most of the other band infoboxes I saw used a pic of the band so I did it for consistency. I don't care much one way or the other. The Ungovernable Force 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Have re-protected the Crass page as still being targetted by serial vandal(s) quercus robur 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have unprotected the page again, lets see how it goes this time... quercus robur 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected, what is it about this page that attracts such obsessive vandalism??? quercus robur 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Lets hope that's enough. Rich Farmbrough 16:47 30 June 2006 (GMT).

To be honest, I like it unprotected because many admins are watching it, and it is usually the first port of call for the vandals. It's effectively a trap. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism

As well as the usual blatant vandalism and the ho-hum tedious '1976' perpetual re-insertion, there seem to be little bits of inaccurate disinformation being sneaked into this article, I guess this needs keeping an eye on as well, maybe its time to reinstate the protection? quercus robur 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporate parasitism

Roll of shame, corporate entities who have been photographed preening in Crass t-shirts as fashion item;

• Ozzy Osborne
• David Beckham
• Alien Ant Farm

who cares? Certainly not any ex members of Crass, although Penny Rimbaud did tell me that he wrote to David Beckham asking that since david is obviously such a big fan of Crass would he be interested in making a donation to the Dial House appeal... needless to say he never got a reply...

I did hear that on the Beckham teeshirt the logo was done in pink sequins, which rather appeals to me I must say... quercus robur 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Irelevant links

Removed links to Chumabwamba and the EX as these bands aren't directly related to Crass, also Current 93 and Thought Crime as these were Steve Ignorant projects, not Crass projects, Thought Crime featured 'guest vocals' from Igs on a recording released in 2004, 20 years after Crass ceased operation, so hardly a 'band formed by Steve Ignorant after Crass split' quercus robur 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism...

...has started (changing image, changing year of formation to 1976), again. Just, keep an eye on the situation

Crass

I was looking for the word "Crass". I don't know what it means but its something to do with negative behaviour. 86.147.1.221 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Try the Wiktionary entry for Crass: "Coarse; crude; not refined or sensible". The band took their name from the use of the word in a Bowie song. -Switch ^t 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

hardcore punk

Crass released their third album Penis Envy in 1981. This marked a departure from the 'hardcore punk' image that Feeding of the 5000 and its follow up Stations of the Crass had to some extent given the group.

Isn't hardcore a specific term for the fast-tempo punk rock style emerged in the USA from bands like Circle Jerk, Black Flag and Dead Kennedys? I think the quotes just make it look like more inaccurate. Thank you. (unsigned comment moved from archive to 'live' discussion page by quercus robur 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC) )

The term 'harcore punk' was in currency in the UK before being applied to US bands such as Black Flag, etc, and was generally used to diferentiate the 'authentic' punk sounds of bands that weren't percieved as having 'sold out' (ie, developed a more commercial, accessable sound, eg, Siouxsie and the Banshees, later Clash, etc, etc). Bands such as Crass, the Exploited, etc, were certainly considered 'hard core' by UK punks around 1979-80, at least a year or two before we'd heard of the likes of Black Flag, Circle Jerks, etc, and I think that that lable was kind of co-opted a bit later by those US bands. Anyway, Crass probably never considered themselves 'hard-core punk', and following Stations of the Crass with Penis Envy was almost certainly a deliberate strategy to ensure that they didn't get pigeon-holed by one particular narrow lable that had associations with leather jackets, suds, bristles, mohicans and aggressively played 3 chord thrash. Of course as I mentioned above, 'hard core' came to mean something a bit different later on, but within the context of the above quoted statement I think it's appropriate quercus robur 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The term was used as described above in the late 1970s in the UK. Crass, Exploited, Discharge etc were known as "hard core punk". US bands like Black Flag and Circle Jerks, when they did become known over here, were never to my knowledge referred to as "hard core punk". They would have just been referred to as "American Punk Bands", at that time anyway.

The logo

Ok, so the text says, "The aforementioned logo represented an amalgamation of several 'icons of authority' including the Christian Cross, the swastika and the Union Flag combined with a two headed snake consuming itself (to symbolise the idea that power will eventually destroy itself)." The source is an interview in 'New Crimes' fanzine, issue 3, winter 1980. The thing is, I do not and never have seen any indication of the Union Jack, nor of a swastika, except for perhaps elements of a bent swastika, and I have no way of looking at the original source material. I did however come across this altered Crass logo which appears to have been for the Sheep Farming in the Falklands single. The Union Jack is clearly present, and although I still don't see a clear swastika, the elements of a bent one still remain. Is there any way that interview was talking about this logo instead? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No its definately the original Dave King logo that is being refered to, and these elements are definately there. This has been stated by Rimbaud and others in several fanzines and elsewhere, I'll see if i can find another more easily verifiable reference however quercus robur 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. I trust you know what you're talking about on this one. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rival Tribal Rebel Revels flexi

A small niggle ....wasn't the Toxic Graffiti zine spelt as I have rather than Graffity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.48.92 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Here's a scan of the cover from the Southern website, which goes with the 'grafity' spelling [2] , however I don't think that Mike Diboll who produced the zine was too fussed about spelling, so it probably differed from issue to issue! quercus robur 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox header

Well, the style recently seems to be to replace raw text headers on band infoboxes with stylised images of the band's logo/name as it appears on their official releases. Someone has just given Crass this treatment.

I think there's a problem in that they've chosen to use the entire crass logo, which is a big circle and just looks fucking wrong. I guess the thing to do would be to use the stencil text but not the whole logo. I'll get to that eventually, but if anyone else feels the need to comment, I thought I'd open it up. ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks cluttered and quite ugly personally. Its also not a particularly well executed rendition of the Dave King Crass logo quercus robur 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've replaed it with an image of just the stenilled text. It definitely suits better than the full logo. I'm in no way attahed to it though, so if anyone feels very strongly about it, they can remove the image. I never would have bothered if an image hadn't been plaed there to begin with. ~Switch ^{t c g} 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better quercus robur 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox header 2008

And now the style is NOT to allow band's logos in infobox headers, acording to the new WP rules in well hidden and ridiculously named pages like WP:FAIR and WP:MUSTARD. So I removed the usual CRASS stencil lettering and replaced it with a plain CRASS text. Which was then disapproved of too because "name should follow normal english capitalization rules, per WP:MOS". So now it's Crass. (I wish those in WP who spent their time nitpicking over such futilities would devote their energy to banning IP editing or something.)  Channel ®    10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Over-linked

I can't help but feel that the last edit has left this article over- linked, including to completely irrelevant articles, such as an album by a heavy metal band. Howeevr some of the new links are valid, but I personally havn't got time to sift through right now, doeas anybody else fancy taking a look?? quercus robur 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll have a look at it. I also restored the 'references' and 'also of note' sections which had been completely cut up and partially deleted. (Vandalism?)  Channel ®    11:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tatchergate

I changed the word 'samples' in a faked conversation using edited SAMPLES of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans' voices to 'recordings'. As in a faked conversation using edited RECORDINGS of....
Tatchergate was a classic cut-the-tape job, and to me the word 'samples' suggests use of computers or digital samplers. Which was not the case. However, English is not my first language so if I'm wrong, feel free to change it back.  Channel ®    22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT rights?

What song(s) did they mention LGBT issues? I'm not saying they didn't, but I've actually wondered if they ever took a stand on that and never actually found any lyrics that seemed to support it, but I haven't extensively examined all their lyrics either. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1976 vs 1977

Guys, please, the band started in 1977. It's mentioned in Rimbaud's Shibboleth, in Berger's The Story Of Crass, and on a Crass Records album sleeve. Oh, and in a Crass CD booklet as well, I think. What more proof do you need? Please stop changing 77 into 76. It gets boring. And it's incorrect.  Channel ®    22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti = vandalism

If the owners of the graffitied property considered it vandalism and removed it, then it's vandalism. Is there any evidence that anybody who had their property graffitied by Crass accepted their interpretation that it was a political statement, or did the owners all just consider it criminal damage? Did they suffer financial loss in doing so or did Crass offer to pay to clean it up in such caseS?

The Berlin Wall is a poor analogy here because it was in effect a prison wall and thus had a very clear role in state-sponsored repression. It's hard to say the same about the Bakerloo Line.

If one were to turn up at Dial House and paint "Thatcher rules!" on it in white letters a foot high, would Crass consider that vandalism or a legitimate way of expressing a view they would probably disagree with?

Overall the whole article reads like it was written by someone who has read too many 1970s NME record reviews. Considering they were a commercially unsuccessful thrash punk band, do they merit an article of this length? Tirailleur (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure about that 'commercially unsuccessful' if I were you. And, according to its members, Crass made a point of not spraying on private property. So your Dial House comparison doesn't fly. Finally, the whole article has been written by dozens of people, not just one NME fan.  Channel ®    18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In what sense were they commercially successful? Also the article says they graffitied advertising hoardings. Those are private property because the space is sublet to companies like JC Decaux who who then sell the space on. Tirailleur (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They were commercially successful in the sense that they sold lots of records. Four of their albums went to number 1 on the UK Indie Chart, with Stations of the Crass spending 106 weeks in the chart, and ten of their singles were indie hits, ranging from number 1 (4 times) to 11 at the lowest. Christ The Album was also a UK top 30 hit.--Michig (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And as far as spraying on advertising boards goes, that's not what I mean with 'private property'. Private property is people's houses, garden walls, etc. If an advertising board is private property than so was the Berlin Wall (property of the German government, no?). One more thing: the length of an article has nothing to do with the amount (or lack) of commercial success the subject has (or had). If that was a rule than people like John Cage or Karlheinz Stockhausen would have to be summed up in one sentence.  Channel ®    19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, even if it is vandalism... then what? You want the band to go back now, 30 years later, to see if there's anything left to clear up or pay for? I don't get it. What's your point?  Channel ®    21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of wondering what the relevance between this discussion and this article was myself. Murderbike (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This might be better discussed at Talk:Graffiti. The distinction has been raised here before. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Andy Palmer / Joy de Vivre

The articles for Andy and Joy are bare, to say the least. I've managed to add some stuff to Andy's, but there's not a lot TO add. Or if there is, I can't find it. The same goes for Joy's article. Any suggestions / help / referenced info available? Somebody? Somewhere?  Channel ®    23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is Andy seems to have made it pretty clear that he wants to draw a line under his career with Crass and pretty much seperate his current activities from his past. I don't think he'd thank anyone for drawing to much attention to what he's up to now, or during the intervening years, and anyone who personally knows him and contributes here is likely to want to respect his wishes, so its sort of Catch 22 91.107.61.27 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

True, and fair enough. I don't think the N. A. Palmer article will ever be much more than it is now, unless Andy changes his mind. I can live with that. No need to put all kinds of stuff online he doesn't want there. At least the article is more than a stub. Joy's on the other hand...  Channel ®   14:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho punk is a genre. Or not?

To User:Johan Rachmaninov: Before this erupts into a revert war, why do you keep removing the Anarcho punk genre from the article? If it's not a genre, then what is it? Anybody else has thoughts on this?  Channel ®   07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a genre, and I don't think it's valid to hold up the Anarcho punk wikipedia article as evidence that it isn't, if that was what was going on. That article needs a lot of work, but while covering the broader aspects of the anarcho-punk 'culture', does not demonstrate that it isn't a genre.--Michig (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one the page on Anarcho punk clearly states that it is not a genre. While it may have been a scene, scenes do not automatically translate into genres. Also, if it is a genre, What are the musical charartistics that seperate it from others in the punk genre? Just beacause a band talks about how they are anarchist does not mean it suddenly a genre. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that this category (and the 146 bands in it) is nonsense?  Channel ®   00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see bands from at least 4 different punk sub genres in thereInhumer (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that it it is not a genre. This does not mean that it cant be a catogory are that certain bands can be group under it, it just means that it is not appropriate to put in the info bax under genre. Plus, many bands on that list are not anarchist. O, and by the way, you still have not answered my question on what musical propertied make it a genre. Sometimes silence is louder than words. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) In fact, I would say that anrcho-punk is more of a movement than a genre. After all, do you know the reason that the anchro-punk article treats it as a movement rather than a genre? It's beacause no one can find a source stating that it is a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Rachmaninov (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to play your little game. I've noticed in your edit history that you like to do Genre "policing", even getting blocked for it, and I'm not going to be sucked into this pointless discussion. A genre/style is not easily defined as you well know (or should have realized by now). Just look at Death Metal, Black Metal, and Black Doom for example. To me it's all the same, but other people have very different opinions about it and consider them (sub)genres. Okay, fine with me. YOU may not believe Anarcho punk is a genre, but the 146 bands in that category apparently do. Most of them have infoboxes that say "Genre:Anarcho-punk" in their articles as well. If you want to get rid of all of them, good luck. That'll be an interesting discussion on the Talkpages. People might consider you a discipel of The Truth , though.  Channel ®   10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course anarcho-punk is a musical genre. No need for further discussion on the matter, and I suggest that if the above poster continues to revert the changes s/he be blocked 77.96.212.87 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, someone needs to read [[WP:CIVIL], WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Look, I have no problem with the catagory. My only problem is the the fact that we have a link in the genre box that bring people to a page that clearly states that anchro-punk is a movment, not a genre. Strikes me as kinda contradictory. You know all you have to do to end this fight is to get a(reliable) source that says that anchro-punk is a genre and edit it's page accordingly. What is it with punk rock fans and not being able to follow the guidlines of wikipedia? And finally, Channel, don't you dare put words in my mouth again. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And which words would that be exactly?  Channel ®   00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You implied that just beacause I did not think that anchro punk was a genre, I was attacking the category of anchro punk and wanted to get rid of it. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One, "putting words in someone's mouth" means writing or saying something in a way that suggests that the other person said it. I've never done anything of the kind. So don't you "dare" to accuse me of it. Two, don't tell me "all you have to do to end this fight". This is not a fight. This is a difference of opinion between you and the rest (it seems). Three: If you think the problem lies with the Anarcho punk article, then I suggest you work on that article instead of removing a link to it. Four: I didn't "inpile" you wanted to get rid of the category, I wondered if you wanted to get rid of every "Genre:Anarcho punk" line in these bands' infoboxes, like you did with Crass. Finally, the only one who needs to read WP:CIVIL appears to be you.  Channel ®   09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm on down thier buddy. Now to adress your points, Firstly, If I misinterpretated you statements I'm sorry. Secondly, fight, conflict, agrument, it's all means the same thing. I'm just more likely to use fight beacause I'm very argumentative (as you can tell). Thridly, I don't have a problem with the anchro punk arcticle. I agree with it. As I see it, anchro punk is a movement in punk rock in which the bands happen to be anarchist. Fouerthly, again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Now, I think we both need to step a bit back and try to discuss the issue at hand here instead of debating over spelling mistakes and precived threats. Now, as far as I can see, I don't have anything to prove. It's up to you to prove that it is a ganre and it would also be helpful if you could find a source that defnes it's musical characteristics. Balls in your court. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything. You're the only one disputing that it's a genre (and you're also the first one ever, I think). Has it occured to you that 'genre' doesn't always has to relate to a strict musical description? Wikipedia uses a much wider definition of 'genre'. It can also relate to the subject. For example, 'Christmas music' is considered a genre (See Happy Xmas (War Is Over)) and so are 'protest songs' (see Casey Sheehan Didn't Die for Nothing), to name just two. But if you really want to take Anarcho punk out of all the 'genre' boxes, you'll have to go to the other band's Talk pages as well and see what the people there think. If the majority of Anarcho punk contributors agree that it shouldn't be called a genre, THEN things change. Until then nothing happens. That's how Wikipedia works. By consensus. If you want to try that, go ahead. See what the folks at Conflict, Icons of Filth, and The Apostles think, for a start. But I don't give you much of a chance to be honest.  Channel ®   23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check the wikipedia page for both christmas music and protest songs, since both pages make it pretty clear that they are crossgenre terms for a certain type of song. For instance both Bob dylan and Crass have made what could be desribed as protest songs, but only an idiot would agrue that both songs are in the same genre. And I'm not the only one stating this point. As I have already stated, the wikipedia page on anarcho punk states it is not a genre, so some one must agree with me. And finally, it does not matter what the "majority" think or agree to. Wikipedia runs on Verifiability not the tyranny of the majority. Anything that states that Anachro punk is a genre without a source to back it up is original reasearch. As you have previously stated Wikipedia is not the truth Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you keep missing the point and I'm getting fed up with this discussion. I've been polite, I've given you plenty of examples, and now I'm finished. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing, I suggest you follow the links I provided and see what the folks think there about your views on genres. Oh, and last but not least, take a look at this.  Channel ®   08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look I've given you numerous chance's, but as it seems you won't listen to any reason and seem determined to push your POV, I'm force to remove the genre again. It's obivous that this is getting us nowhere fast. As cannot provide a good reason why anarcho punk is a genre, i will change the genre box and consider any edits angainst this to be bad faith vandalism. Oh, and allmusic guide has never been a reliable source. It's one of the most inacurrate websites i've ever seen, to the point of stupidityJohan Rachmaninov (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Insult me again and you're in trouble. This is bordering on a personal attack and believe me, I won't have that. End of story.  Channel ®   01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So far we have 3 votes that is a genre against one that says it isn't. Popular music genres are generally never supported by academic research and genres included in articles rely on consensus between editors. Please don't remove it again unless there is a consensus to do so. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anarchopunk is clearly a musical genre. Make that 4 votes 91.107.61.27 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An infobox is a quick summing up of the main facts. Infoboxes don't contain refs or tags because all the facts in them are already mentioned and reffed in the article. Removed Johan's tags from the infobox.  Channel ®   09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Art punk

Ok, here's a reference for art punk as a genre for Crass. Can we give the {{fact}} tags a rest now and move on to something more constructive please?--Michig (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-punk?

I don't really see how they could be classified as anything other than a staple of post-punk music. I tried to include this but got reverted on the basis that a band could not be post-punk "if it was only active during the 1st wave of punk". First of all, anything 1980-1984 (or post-1978, by some accounts) can't be said to have operated wholly during the first wave. Besides, their music is full of distortion, spoken word, sound collage, and diatribes against the "sell-outs" Joe Strummer and Johnny Rotten. If this isn't a musical and lyrical attempt to distance one's self from first wave punk, and indeed, expand it's horizons, then I don't really know what it is. I think this information is accurate and gives the reader a better idea of the band's musical focus. 24.3.15.249 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. My definition of 'post-punk' was bit too literal, I'm afraid. Apologies.    SIS  15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. I the only reason I changed it was because I originally had adhered to that chronological basis for their genre, too, but then I saw that Joy Division formed in '76 and they're listed as post-punk right off the bat. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts?

Should we put up a section for this? Steve Ignorant has been in other bands like Schwartzenagger (sic) and of course, Conflict (band). I'm sure there are others, too.24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not really associated, I think. It's all after Crass and Crass itself doesn't do anything anymore.    SIS  22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Flux of Pink Indians don't do anything anything anymore either and they have stuff like Rubella Ballet listed as an associated act. The only they had in common was that they shared a drummer! I think key members being in bands with similar lyrical and musical content would count as "associated", especially if the aforementioned case does. P.S. I hope we actually agree on an aspect of this article one day! 24.3.14.157 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Flux and Rubella shared a member at the same time, that's my point. If Crass had associated acts they would be Poison Girls and Rubella Ballet, since they shared members, worked on each other's records, toured together, (more or less) all lived at Dial House, and all that during the same active period. Steve's work with Conflict is after Crass ceased to exist. I think that doesn't make Conflict a Crass associate act. Just my opinion. You did ask for opinions ;-)    SIS  13:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just being pedantic, but Poison Girls didn 't live at Dial House, but lived for a time down the road at Burleigh House, which has since been demolished to make way for the M25. But none the less still very much an 'associated act'. I'd also argue that Crass and Conflict WERE assocaited acts, they did loads of gigs together, Igs sang on 'To A nation Of Animal Lovers' whilst still in Crass, Conflict put out a single on Crass Records, etc, etc. The Rubella connection with Crass was far more tenuous however, not much beyond Igs and rachel being an 'item' for a while... 77.96.212.87 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good points. I'm not too educated on the Wikipedia standards for that stuff, because I've seen tons of articles where people are listed as "associated acts", even if they only collaborated on a single with someone! Oh well, this can be one of the articles that does it right! And yes, that was a good opinion. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP has a standard for "Associated Acts", to be honest...    SIS  21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of ridiculous now, id'nit? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara Poster

Problem with Crass was simply that the music wasn't really that good. Same as the fiddle-de-dee of The Levellers, in the sense that its heart was probably in a good place, but its rock / groove / punk balls / soul was lost somewhere during the first joint. Essentially, although it's a good start, cool artwork is not enough. Crass would probably put their lack of "hits" down to a government conspiracy, though. Incidentally, isn't it funny how it's often the crusty and work-shy who are the loudest ones moaning about worker's rights?

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.179.117 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And these personal views improve the article... eh... how exactly?  Channel R   20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Culture Jamming?

This would be a very minor edit, but I'm not sure that I understand either topic sufficiently to make it with confidence: under History, would the "deliberately mixed messages" mentioned in the logo be considered (and linked to) culture jamming?

Just a thought.

Loveloveloved Crass back in the day!

A great day 2 all! Luckydraws (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Formation

Crass formed in 1976 not 1977. Ask the members of Crass themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Derrick Robinson (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-punk?

I can't think of a single reason why this wouldn't be included in their genre section. They were one of the few bands that actively disavowed punk as an extant format. "Punk Is Dead", anyone? Not to mention, the idea of utilizing elements of punk, but rearranging/recombining them into something entirely "different" is one of the hallmarks of the post-punk movement, yes? Also, the band's sound (as guided by John Loder, who also worked with decidedly post-punk bands like Shellac and The Jesus And Mary Chain) was nigh-directly responsible for much of what became known as "post-punk". I dunno. Shoot this idea down. NeutronTaste (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. They were actually listed as post-punk but the genre was removed [3]. I've restored it. Yintaɳ  23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.179.240.237, 3 June 2011

Hello, About a month ago I tried to add an external link to the Crass wiki page, which was removed twice by User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I replied to the user but have received no reply.

Could you therefore please consider the following link again for this page.

CRASS JOURNAL: The Last Act A record of letters, articles, postings and e-mails, February 2009 – September 2010 which details the disagreement between the members of Crass over the re-mastered and re-packaged reissues.

I tried to place this link below the External link 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues.'

The link which I tried to add was a collection of articles by Pete Wright the bass player of Crass and was directly linked to the 'disagreement over re-mastered reissues' within the band.

Could you therefore review this decision and perhaps include the link once again to the external links on the Crass page.

Thank you

81.179.240.237 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template., i.e., please establish a consensus with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello GaneshBhakt, Firstly I would like to draw to your attention to the first guideline at the top of the page which says 'Be polite' when discussing improvement to articles, which presumably would mean starting a reply with something other than 'Not done:'

Secondly, why are you asking for a consensus, when I have already stated that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has declined to answer my original request? You can see my original reply here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Edit_of_wiki_Crass_page_27.04.11 The only mistake that I made was saying that I did not know who the article was by but I have now realised it was indeed by Pete Wright, the former bass player of Crass. Please explain how a consensus can be established with somebody that does not answer.

To the best of my knowledge User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was not in the group Crass. But if they had taken the time to read the document that this link goes to, they would have realized that it was by a former member of the band Crass.

Thank you for your time on this matter and I hope that on considered reflection you will realize that adding this link to the external links section of the Crass page does not detract in any way from the information on the rest of the page.

Yours Faithfully

A Wiki User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.71.32 (talk)

The "Not done" response is from a template used to respond to semi-protected edit requests, so please don't take it personally. I'm sorry you didn't get a response from the user that removed your link; you're right that it's impossible to come to a consensus with someone who won't talk to you. That being said, per the external link guideline and what's already in the external link section on the article, I believe the link you want to add was removed because it doesn't belong. It's not all that relevant to the article and there are already too many external links in the section to begin with. As the guideline says, it's up to you as the person who wants to add the link to show why it's important to have it. If you can explain what is so important about these letters, it would go a long way to supporting the link's inclusion. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bility, Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Here are the reasons that I think the link is relevent to the Crass wiki page:

The last paragraph of the Crass History section is titled '2010: The Crassical Collection reissues'. This paragraph documents the re-release of the Crass back catalogue. The second last link on the external links section says 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues.' The link that I was trying to place in the external links section of the page would have complemented and given a more balanced viewpoint to the '...details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues'. This link is a collection of correspondence between the ex members of Crass and their record distribution company by Pete Wright (the ex bass player of Crass), that of Joy De Vivre (ex singer of Crass) and N. A. Palmer (ex guitarist of Crass) who disagreed with the rest of the band over 'The Crassical Collection reissues'. Given the history and legacy of the band, I would have thought that this link gives a concise insight into the 'details of disagreement' that were had between the band and which is already refered to on the Crass external links section.

Therefore, I propose a reworking of the paragraph titled '2010: The Crassical Collection reissues' to include a reference to 'details of disagreement' within the band, with the supporting references being the two external links ie. 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED...' and the one that I was trying to place. Or I propose the removal of 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED...' as it only allows one side of the 'The Crassical Collection reissues' story and is therefore biased and without foundation or irrelevent to the rest of the page.

Obviously I do not want to see anything removed from the page but I do think that if the page benefits from some ex members of the band getting to discuss the reissues (ie. Penny and Steve) then the others (ie. Pete, Andy and Joy) should as well.

Yours Faithfully A Wiki User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.71.32 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Done I cannot guarantee that it will stay in the article but I have added it in now. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That logo again

I uploaded a new version of the logo and added it to the article. The previous one got deleted because it was uploaded to Commons. This one is on WP instead and now has (to the best of my knowledge) the proper Fair Use rationales and licenses. Shouldn't be a problem.  Yintan  12:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article about crass, include it if you like

How A Punk Band Fooled MI6, Scared Margaret Thatcher And Almost Caused A Diplomatic Incident

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-an-anarchist-punk-band-almost-caused-a-cold-war-diplomat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.92.166 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)