Talk:Mod (subculture)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stylized Target??

Isn't that just a Royal Air Force roundel? The Ben Sherman article says he like to use RAF colors.

Or were those Mods flying Spitfires in World War II? -- Paul Richter 12:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Research on Google Image shows targets on the cover of magazines and things: Here. And it is the same as the RAF logo. --huwr 03:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's gone. I'm replacing it with a photo of the Kinks for two reasons. They are the best known Mod-type band and a great example of the fashion. I am removing the RAF roundel for all of the above reasons and for what it's worth: it really is an RAF roundel, the same one used by all the RAF wikis. Alan Parmenter 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about the Kinks. Their fashion began in the jacket-and-tie format of most British pop groups of the time, but their hair was a bit long and scruffy, as reflected in your photo, and The Book of Rock Lists called them "too Edwardian to really fit" into the mod scene. (See cover of debut LP--very frilly.) I think most sources cite their musical significance for the mods but don't identify them as a mod band per se. The Who is surely just as popular, and more strongly asociated with mod. The Small Faces better exemplify the fashion (of the mid-sixties mod). 82.45.161.53 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By now, you will be thinking that I must have been sent here specifically to annoy you - apologies for that. However, I feel obliged to point out the fair use licensing terms for that image (the album cover) specifically state it may only be used to illustrate the recording itself - that would exclude it's use here, I think. Please see here for full details. CiaranG 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

YES it is a roundel, not a target an I think the article should be changed to reflect this. -unsigned

• Also, I don't think I've ever seen any photos of 1960s mods wearing roundels, other than Keith Moon (and that was due to their manager molding their image). According the wide range of photos I've seen, most 1960s mods wore button-down shirts (or polo shirts to a lesser extent), V-neck sweaters and other pullovers, suits or blazers - confining T-shirts to undershirt status (unlike the rockers who wore them as outerwear). I don't think I've noticed 1960s mods wearing the roundel as patches on parkas either, but maybe someone can prove otherwise. It seems to be more of a Mod Revival thing. Spylab 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mod revival

have started article on Mod Revival.

Please don't merge, at least not yet...

--MacRusgail 11:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting to see that SLC Punk didn't come up in the discussion, as Mods are mentioned in it, and it's a fairly popular movie that deals with some of the "clashes" between "punks" and "mods" etc... -JX

Mod fashion

This is the same mod as the 1960s fashion, twiggy, oversized brightly colored dresses and trenchcoat themes?

-- by the mid to late 60s and beyond the term mod was being used as an adjective to describe the things you mention - and lots more besides. Almost anything considered trendy, cool, youthful or British in fact. However the original mod subculture is a million miles apart from this later usage of the word. I have inserted a sentence near the beginning of the article explaining this difference. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.85.11 (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mod deletion

So, let's discuss WHY the recent deletion concerning "false claims" happened. I'm, not going to put it back up because I don't want to clutter this site, but I'll challenge anybody on any of the statemnts made. Now, you want to edit and discuss it with me, fine. Don't be a prick and just delete everything that I said when I can ABSOLUTELY come up with references from local pub owners who were Mods back in the day, and never even recognized the split between Mods and Skins. They took it for granted that they were two fingers on the same hand. You want to debate points here, fine. Don't outright yank it because you bought a Kinks album and a Lambretta. If we don't come to a resolution within a week, I'm putting my addition back up. I didn't say anything not verifiable through readily available sources besides actually speaking to people who were there. One of the people who proofread this for facts was the former guitarist for The Numbers and later of 5:30. How else do you find out info besides interviewing anyone who was involved? Oh, I'm sorry, you used the internet.

OK, so I found the problem... the three bands mentioned are "have nothing to do with mod" right? Yeah, stay stuck in 1965. So, Franz Ferdinand isn't featured on the Merc "favored bands list"? Sure, we'll debate The Strokes. RadioNation even rsembles the four Merc accessory figures. MODERNIST MODERNIST MODERNIST How many times does it have to be said? If you are stuck in the sixties.... well, that's not MODERN, is it? Was your vespa built in 1966? I didn't even bother bringing up the whole Two-tone movement. ALL of the British subcultures had the roots in the Mod scene somehow. Hell, I just noticed that Oasis wasn't even mentioned. I would have ben more than happy to edit and alter anything that I wrote, but evidently there are some real know-it-alls here.

Dinoyn5 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Read this ... This explains it all. http://www.uppers.org/whatismod.asp

I just noticed this discussion, and looked at what I think are the changes in question. Some of the statements were based in truth, but others played fast and loose with the facts.

There's no debate that skinheads came from mods. This is well articulated in the skinhead article. One false claim that got deleted was that the creation of skinheads was based on a rejection of leftism. There have always been left-wing mods and skinheads (as well representatives of the rest of the political spectrum). And not all psychedelic and hippy types were/are politically-minded lefties. The split was mostly based on style, class, lifestyle and music, not left-right politics. Also, it's not "widely believed" that skinhead fashion is a "direct" rejection of the hippie look. Skinhead style evolved positively from mod fashion, not as a negative reaction to other subcultures.

The mention of the revival band from New Orleans is more like self-promotion (or promotion of a friend's band) than anything relevant to the overal understanding of mod culture.

I don't know of a single mod who would refer to current indie rock/disco/punk/new wave-influenced bands like Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes or The Killers as mod. The bands don't pretend to be mods either. What makes them mod, other than the fact that some of the members wear suits? The Strokes don't even have that going for them, since they dress like slobs.

This article needs a lot more details about mods, but quality over quantity should be the guiding principle. Spylab 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Spylab

German electronica = Mod? Since when?

To the person (or persons) who keep saying the electronic music scene is somehow mod, you'll have to do better than just say "look at their websites" in order to convince people. First of all, the sites are in German, so that doesn't help. Second, just because someone dresses like a mod and uses a few mod-influenced images, doesn't mean they are really mods, or that their style of music is part of the mod scene. If that was the case, then techno-listening gabbers would be considered real skinheads, just because they have shaved heads and wear some skinhead clothes. Or Ashley Simpson would be considered punk rock because she borrows some punk fashions and images.Spylab 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)spylab

German electronica = Mod? Not at all?

Spylab, nobody is claiming the german electronics scene in general is somehow mod. The claim is that certain musicians who are part of this scene are mods. They use mod imagery, they dress like mods, they are influenced by mod music, especially in the case of Frank Popp's style, which is quite obviously a modernized version of Northern Soul. There's even a thread on Frank Popp at modculture.co.uk. (http://www.modculture.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9636&highlight=frank+popp)

Obviously, electronics is not what is considered "classic" mod music, but then that is the entire point of mod: modernism, not backwardism. You wouldn't want to disqualify Weller for using synthesizers, would you? Both Erobique, who's latest Album was named "Keil Stouncil à Paris", an obvious play on "Style Council à Paris" and lotte ohm. have publically stated their mod backgrounds, and the latter, according to his website, is an active Northern Soul DJ. If the Ordinary Boys are going to be included, why not Erobique, Popp & ohm.? And while we're on the subject of electronic music: Noonday Underground are another band worth mentioning when speaking of modern mod music... (this time they're english.)

There's a big difference between mod and "mod-influenced." I listened to music samples of one of the German artists you listed, and I don't hear any connection to mod whatsoever. I don't think people would consider Style Council a genuine mod band either. They were more of a new wave synth-pop band, and many mods don't like them. As for the Ordinary Boys, the article says they were influenced by mod. Thats a bit different than what was written about the German electronic artists.

I'm still not convinced that mod culture "runs strong" in the German electronic music scene, and that the artists listed are "obviously" mods, but I'd like to read other people's opinions. Spylab 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)spylab

What is the "big difference"? Care to elaborate? Were The Who mod or "mod-influenced"? The Small Faces? The Jam? Who decides? Is there a mod council nowadays that decides who and what is mod or not? Do we, via ouija-board, ask Pete Meaden?

Anyway, why not change the text to say that they are "mod-influenced" instead of just deleting it? I don't mind - I was just making what I considered to be an interesting point about the continuing influence of mod even outside of Britain. Whether or not the people I mentioned are "true mods" I cannot say, and, frankly, I don't care. To be "real mods" they'd have to be about sixty anyway... They're certainly influenced by mod. For what it's worth, Style Council were mod in my opinion.

Who or what is "mod" vs. "mod-influenced" is in the eye of the beholder in some cases, but is cut and dry in other cases. There's no official mod council that I know of, but there have to be certain agreed-upon standards, or else the term has no meaning. Strong statements need to be backed up by strong evidence. Your rewording is a lot more accurate than what was there before.Spylab 16:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)spylab

Mod as a genre

Why are some people so reluctant to recognise Mod as a music genre within rock?

• Music associated with the mod subculture is already mentioned in the article: modern jazz, soul, RnB, ska, British "beat" music and others. All of those can be described as "mod music." What's your definition of the specific music genre called "Mod"? Spylab 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The music that the Who played for a start. Which wouldn't fall under jazz, soul or ska.

• The music that The Who played when they were considered a mod band was mostly RnB, which is already mentioned in the article. If you want to claim that "Mod" is a specific music genre, you have to clearly define what it is.Spylab 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Mod is not a music genre, the 1960s Mods listened to a lot of music: Soul, Ska, R&B, Blues, Jazz, plain Pop, neither of those are "Rock" genres. In the 1960s there mod bands did not exist, only the Small Faces where known to very close to the culture. The Who did not want to be associated to mod from 1965 on (too dated). only later, The Who's music became "Rock", the Quadrophenia double album is Rock. The genre 'Mod' can much easier be applied to the 1979 revival: (Identifiable) Mods playing Mod music. Only there it all comes together: the clothing and a music to match, but again, that is "Power Pop". In short: You can't tag everything Mods 'ever listend to' as Mod music, technically impossible. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Tag

I don't think the "unreferenced" tag is deserved, since much of this article relies on first hand accounts. The 1960's is not ancient history and there is plenty of truth and value in the memories of real people. Having deleted the tag once I think I need some support. Alan Parmenter 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but one of the key principles of Wikipedia is that information must be verifiable. First-hand accounts are specifically not allowed. Thus, the unreferenced tag is definitely deserved, and should remain until the information is either referenced, or removed. Please start by reading WP:V, which is official Wikipedia policy. Another official policy such first hand accounts would fall foul of is No Original Research, which you can read here: WP:OR. Cheers, CiaranG 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• There have been plenty of books and articles written about the mod subculture, so it shouldn't be hard to find references. It's just a matter of taking the time and energy to do so. Spylab 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen of the Mods

"Cathy McGowan, who hosted the television pop music show Ready Steady Go!, became known as the "Queen of the Mods" (a title sometimes also applied to singer Dusty Springfield and model Twiggy)."

Is there a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised to find it said of McGowan or (I suppose) Twiggy, but Dusty Springfield seems a bit unlikely. Those huge dresses for one thing - hardly mod couture. BTLizard 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm...what about the king of the mods!?!?! Noel Fielding? Isn't he worth mentioning in this article? xxx G

haha I think everyone just wants their favourite bands featured on here, I know I do, (Small Faces)yet they and Steve Marriott have hardly a mention - but anyway The Who were great but they were not really mod as such they were "manufactured mods" wasn't they? Roger Daltrey was definitely anyway. Sue Wallace 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, thanks for editing the pics Sue Wallace 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mars symbol

What (if any) is the significance of the Mars symbol to Mods? It's on the Quadrophenia album artwork, and the "Q" in the movie title is also a similar symbol. I've also seen the symbol in mod graffiti on walls. Does it mean anything? RobbieG 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

-- none of the extensive research I have carried out on the original modernists and mods has ever revealed any significance or meaning behind this symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.85.11 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mods Outside Britain

It's my understanding that mods existed several places outside Britain, notably Australia, yet I see no mention in the article. -MichiganCharms 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

a mod scene exist (since the 80's, but is still quite active) in Italy, especially in turin. Jack

There was also a brief Mod movement in the USA in the eighties, most notably in California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.20.35 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Twiggy60's.jpg

Image:Twiggy60's.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mod is not modernism

In the extensive research I have carried out I have never heard of mod being referred to as modernism apart from by select authors such as Eddie Pillar and Paolo Hewitt

Whoever has added that supposed fact to the article has not provided any sources to the contrary.

The following sources have been quoted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/stage/2003/05/mods/index.shtml

http://www.retroland.com/pages/retropedia/fashion/item/3649/

http://www.geocities.com/eero67/image/paper.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/asop/people/mods_rockers.shtml

http://www.modculture.co.uk/culture/culture.php?id=45

However, NONE of them refer to mod as modernism apart from last one (from Modculture.com). And that is simply an article by Eddie Pillar with no references provided. Hardly credible. Many reliable sources suggest that the word mod comes from modernist, but the term modernism was never used as far as I can tell. To prove otherwise a source needs to be provided.

Also note that online sources that do not contain references themselves are not very credible - especially if they do not contain first hand experience or research to back up their claims. Otherwise it is just opinion.

Can we please leave out the description of mod as modernism until a citation is provided? Or at least mark it as needing a source to back it up. Thanks. Rant over.unsigned

• Correction: every single one of those references use the term modernism or modernist when referring to the mod subculture. According to standard English language rules, a modernist is someone who follows modernism.Spylab 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, just so there's no room for debate, I changed the word modernism to modernist, although it does seem to be splitting hairs, since the two words are intrinsically linked.Spylab 01:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • That was my point. They use the word modernist not modernism (apart from Eddie Pillar's article which I acknowledged). I believe you are wrong about the link between modernist used in this context and the word modernism. Modernist used in this sense refers to players of, or fans of, modern jazz. It doesn't refer to followers of the modernism movement (that has very different connotations). As far as I have read, modern jazz, or a love of modern jazz, has never been referred to as modernism. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong if you can find a source to prove it.

• • Before you get me wrong though, please let me say I think you've been doing a great job with this article. I want you to know I'm not here to cause trouble, vandalise or be a nuisance. I'm only here to help. I have read a vast number of books on mods, modernists and modern jazz and so feel I am in a useful position to help with this article. I also have a good education and some journalistic experience.

• • I don't have much time to dedicate to Wikipedia I'm afraid (still learning) as I work full-time and long hours; but bit by bit I'd like to see this article become a great testament to the mod subculture which has so often been neglected or misunderstood, even by the mainstream press and history books.

• • I already added a paragraph in the main body text explaining how the word mod is believed to derive from modernist. Believe me, I'm not trying to split hairs but I think that it is not accurate to say that mod (as a subculture) is also called modernist. Mods were called modernists, but mod as a movement wasn't. It's also ungrammatical English. I believe you are right to say that mod has been referred to as modism, by Pete Meaden, however that is not common usage from what I have read.

• • Maybe we could compromise and write:

• • Mod (occasionally referred to as modism or modernism)

• • What do you think?

• • You may think I'm pedantic, and maybe I am. But that's a mod trait! I think this article should demonstrate such attention to detail as to do the original mod movement proud.

• • I'll do my best to help work alongside you as and when I have time. I'll also try to look up more of my sources. I have a near library of books at home, so it can be hard to locate (or even remember) the ones I want.

• • 81.106.85.11 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I realized you're trying to make this article better, as am I. I do agree that there is some grammatical issues that need to be settled. For example mod could refer to an individual person or the entire subculture, or it could be used as an adjective. I'll see if there is another way to word the sentence so it is totally accurate and grammatically correct. Any more references you can add to the article would be much appreciated, since everything should be backed up by reliable sources.Spylab 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my latest edit, which I think solves the problems, although perhaps it would be better if there weren't two sets of brackets:

A mod (shortened from the original term modernist) is a member of a subculture (sometimes known as modism) that originated in London in the late 1950s and peaked in the early to mid 1960s.

Spylab 21:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pop art

I have never heard of orginal mods (as opposed to revival or contemporary era mods) having a particular interest in pop art. Can anyone provide a source? The Who were famously interested in pop art of course, but they were not mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.85.11 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard Mods were not called Gang Mods

I cannot see any reference to Hard Mods being called Gang Mods. They were commonly members of gangs of course, but I have never once heard of them being called gang mods. I read the quoted sources which all mention the term hard mods and mention gangs but do not seem to contain the phrase gang mods anywhere.

I vote we delete the line claiming hard mods are also known as gang mods. If you like we can add a line instead explaining that they were usually members of gangs.

81.106.85.11 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I may have book references that use the term gang mods, but I don't have a problem with removing the term for now.Spylab 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • OK, thanks. And thanks for moving these topics to the bottom. Apologies if I broke guidelines. Still new to Wikipedia and learning as I go along! By the way looking at the article history, looks like you've worked hard on it! Pleased to work alongside you. 81.106.85.11 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mods in the arts and/or famous mods?

Is it appropriate to have a section listing famous examples of real-life or fictional mods? Or is that too trivial for an encyclopedia article? I ask here as I'm sure it's been thought about already although I didn't notice specific Talk on it. Thanks!! 81.106.85.11 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Working class pride?

What does it mean exactly to say that "skinheads ... mainly represented working class pride"? Does it mean consciously or subconsciously? Do we have a trustworthy reference for this? 81.106.85.11 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The references in that section are not trustworthy (an unpublished "senior thesis" presented to some professor somewhere...is one of them). The part about Mods being firstly a Jewish invention comes from the same thesis (which is about motorscooters, not mods, btw). It's odd to claim a movement has Jewish foundation when the first person account givers don't mention that aspect of it...Don't know how anyone can know how skinheads stand in relationship to working class pride but surely one can have working class pride without being a skinhead, so there's some disconnect.69.108.136.250 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No images in article?

Given that this article describes a fashion trend that is based on visual items such as clothes, this article needs images! Several of them, preferably. No amount of description can replace a few well-thought photos. Radishes (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi...it's hard to get "free use" images of mod subculture. I have looked through all of the Wikimedia Commons collection of copyright-free photos, and all I could find is the "2 mods on scooter" pic in the lede section. There are a few pictures of 2000s-era scooters all done up in a mod style, but those wouldn't be suitable for this article, because its about the 1960s. I hope some people who have old photos in their attics send them into Wikimedia Commons so we can illustrate the styleOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few comments from someone who was there

And I have to start by saying I have no wiki references to give you, my experiences were all first hand and I state them here purely for the benefit of anyone interested in the subject. I was a 'card carrying' out and out, scooter riding Mod from 1964 until around 1968:

In the 1960s we had never even heard of modernist, modernism or any other high falluting term. We wuz just Mods. If pressed we would have just said we were 'modern' and wore 'modern' clothes. But take it from me we didn't analize the derivation at the time, we just embraced the lifestyle and the clothes.

As far as music is concerned we had just two bands we called our own, The Who and the Small Faces. From the 2008 viewpoint we now know that the Who were pseudo Mods, manufactured by manager Kit Lambert as a marketing device but we did not know that at the time, we accepted them on face value for what we thought they were. Other music included early ska, soul music, r & b (thats REAL rhythym and blues like Graham Bond Organisation and Brian Auger Trinity, not the modern meaning of r & b) and even Geno Washington and the Ram Jam Band. Jazz in the form of organist Jimmy Smith was also acceptable. German electro rock never surfaced, we had never heard of it and would have laughed at it if we had.

The red white and blue roundel WAS a feature of the original culture. Several scooter riding friends of mine had it painted on the back of their parkas in the mid 1960s and it frequently appeared on posters for Mod dances and concerts.

I was aware of the emergence of skinheads in the late 1960s and, in retrospect, can see that they probably arose from some of the 'harder' inner city Mod gangs. But at the time we considered them, their lifestyle and clothing as weird and outlandish. From a practical point of view the emerging skinhead gangs would pick a fight with Mods as quickly as they would rumble with anybody else and generally considered Mods as 'sissy poofs'. Skinhead culture had more to do with the organised football 'firms' than with Mods.

Queen of the Mods? Well it could any one of three. Certainly Cathy Macgowan laid a valid claim to the title, Twiggy possibly - but she was really only a plastic clothes horse back then. If asked to vote at the time I would have quickly chosen Julie 'The Face' Driscoll (and look up pictures of her at the time, she was a stunner - the years have not been kind to her).

All I can say is that it was huge fun and yes I was at the later Brighton riots, staged for the press?? well not really and I lost a tooth in evidence to that, but a lot of it was peacock strutting, all threats and gesturing with not a lot of action.

Oh yes and my Vespa was a 1958 model in post box red with multiple mirrors and chromed side panels, till the local fuzz decided they were an illegal reflection hazard and made me take them off. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...and the musicians themselves...

So, why is there a citation needed on the claim that 'mod' was short for 'modernist', a term used for fans of modern jazz and the musicians themselves? The fact that it was used for fans and developed into the term 'mod' is well documented in Richard Barnes and MacInnes's _Absolute Beginners_, among other places. So is it just a question of whether it was used for the musicians themselves? In that case, the latter point should be deleted; or at least, a citation added *before* the point about the musicians. I'm just going to do that; it makes the establihed facts, and their status as established, usefully clearer.

Modism

The second sentence in this article should really be deleted. The specific word 'modism' is not a very important aspect of the subject. In 25 years as a neo-mod, I've never heard it used in conversation, and that includes many philosophical discussions about the subculture. The famous Pete Meaden quote, though, should be included, and perhaps right where it stands. I suspect the remark about the word 'modism' is the end result of some teminological debate that's only important to Wikipedia editors and mod pedants like you and me. So I'm going to cut it. Change it back if you really think it's so important that it should be the second sentence!! 212.32.81.86 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Links

Having encountered problems in adding a link to this topic (and following subsequent discussion of this matter) I have come to appreciate that Wikipedia is purely an encyclopedia consisting of text information about specific topics - indeed Wikipedia's policy specifically says it's not a directory. On the basis of this understanding I would like to propose that, rather than a list of links at the bottom of the topic, a single well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations relevant to the Mod movement is used - such a directory is readily available at the Open Directory Database [1] and in fact all of the links already in place in the Wikipedia topic are already listed in this directory, plus several other useful links!

If this is agreed, suggestions can easily be made to the Open Directory for further inclusions in this listing, whilst the Wikipedia topic remains undisturbed - with just a single link to that listing.

I have also started a discussion on this matter in the Wikipedia talk:External links. Glasgowmods (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a standard way of dealing with articles in which the EL section has become problematic, so I say go for it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. External links sections in Wikipedia articles should not be replaced by single links to open directory databases such as dmoz.org, because Wikipedia and its editors would have no control over what websites are included in those databases. Spylab (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to (and don't want to) control what's there. We just need enough to know that the link is overall useful, and more helpful than having a bunch of links here people argue over. It's pretty standard, as described on WP:EL#Links to be considered. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at countless Wikipedia articles, and have never seen an external links section replaced by a single link to an external directory, so it doesn't seem standard at all. This is what it says in the "Links to be considered" section you posted:

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template.

That situation does not apply here. There is not a long list of links, and the only website that is in dispute is the Glasgow Mods site. I haven't really looked at that site, and don't know why it keeps getting removed. The solution is to have a discussion on this talk page about why the Glasgow Mods site should or should not be included here.Spylab (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, Glasgow Mods is not the only WP:EL problem in this article. I encouraged User:GlasgowMods (who is a newbie here) to make this proposal, so I'm overdue to stop by and help explain.

After reviewing the items listed in Mod (lifestyle)#External links, it is my considered opinion that none of the links listed there meets the criteria of WP:EL#What to link. Indeed, all of those links have attributes of links to be avoided, as they are commercial websites, blogs, personal sites, and other content that is "not normally" linked. None appears to be a uniquely valuable informational addition to the article. Specifically:

• Jack That Cat Was Clean - is a blog
• Modculture - is a commercial site that appears to exist mostly to sell stuff
• The Uppers Organization - seems to be a portal site or a 'zine with a diverse variety of content
• My mod and rocker story - one person's recollections (and site author does not appear to be notable
• Mod Revival - seems to be a personally maintained site with a variety of content (some user-contributed) and advertising
• Glasgow Mods Anthology - another personally maintained site with a variety of content

All of these have some merit, such as interesting photos (and I think Glasgow Mods may one of the better sites), but none of them is an official site or an authoritative source of information (two main categories of "links to be considered"). Indeed, they are pretty good match for links normally to be avoided, as there is no site that "provide[s] a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" (item 1), most of these sites are inherently unverifiable as sources (item 2), several are blogs or personal web pages (item 11), and at least one may exist primarily to sell products or services (item 5).

Given the low value of all lnks, I suggested that instead of trying to select a few mod-related websites to list as ELs in the article, this seems to be a situation where item 3 under WP:ELMAYBE is the best advice. That section suggests linking to: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Template: dmoz template." In accordance with that guideline, I suggested that the list of links in Mod (lifestyle)#External links could be replaced by a single link to http://dmoz.org/Society/Subcultures/Modernist .

Non-reference external links sections are not required in Wikipedia, and there is plenty of precedent for articles having an External links section that contains only (or almost only) a link to ODP. Examples include American Cocker Spaniel (ODP is the only link on the ELs list), Autism (a featured article, linking only to ODP), Chagas disease (another FA, with 2 links, including one to ODP), (ColecoVision (links only to ODP), Cryptozoology (one of two links is to ODP), Gaffer tape (ODP is the only link), Garage sale (ODP is the only link unless the spammers have been there recently), Hangman_(game) (links only to ODP), Mahjong (links only to ODP), Mandelbrot set (one of two external links is to ODP), Self-publishing (ODP is the only link), and Shareware (ODP is the only link).

Because both GlasgowMods and I are both associated with ODP, I suggested that it would be best to discuss the concept on a talk page before moving ahead with it. The idea was to make sure that other Wikipedians who aren't affiliated with ODP (and ideally should know more about the "Mods" topic than I do) see this as an acceptable use of a link to ODP. --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i would just clarify one thing - my user name on here is 'Glasgowmods' but the site i have been trying to add is 'The Mod Generation' [2] - there is already a link in place to the 'Glasgow Mods' website [3] which still remains (i have contributed a lot of stuff to that site but i don't own it). The problem i had was in adding a link to 'The Mod Generation' website, which i firmly believe has as much value as any of the other links in place. However, i see it as reasonable to have an single link within the topic to the ODP category (which could be titled 'Mod links') where the researcher would find several links to the mod world - and can suggests alternative links of their own

Glasgowmods (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this proposal? Can the links currently in place be replaced with a single link to an extended list of Mod links (which is evergrowing and thus providing a far greater depth of content for those researching or simply interested in the mod subculture). Glasgowmods (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Mod (subculture)?

In keeping with the rest of Wikipedia, should this article not be moved to Mod (subculture)? We are talking about a diverse subculture here, not just a lifestyle. I think the move would be appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, This seems like a reasonable suggestion. The term "lifestyle" sounds more like a scene in which individuals are all involved in some common activity, but mostly alone or in small groups. The term "subculture" gets across the idea of a community of people with similar interests and values.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup-rewrite tag removed

Hi, An editor posted a cleanup-rewrite tag in Sept 2009. I have removed this, because the editor did not provide any explanation of why the tag is needed. Of course, you don't have to always explain why you put a cleanup-rewrite tag on an article. If there is an article about a pop band that is written in a fawning, fanclub style ("this group is one of the most amazing, most creative, and most good looking bands, ...) or an article that is merely a list of random trivia about a topic ("the lead singer of the band likes scrabble...the bassist likes to sleep in on weekends...etc), then I would understand the tag (Cleanup-rewrite) even if it didn't have an explanation.........However, there is not an obvious problem with this article that would seem to justify the tag. It is full of reputable sources, it is organized into themes and subsections, and there has been a lot of writing, copyediting and improvements by SpyLab and Republican Jacobite ( among others), which helps to give it a good flow. Now if the editor describes the concern, then I think that the tag should go up until this problem is corrected. But what IS the "cleanup-rewrite" problem? A lack of references, particularly for controversial claims? Undue weight given to some subtopic, or to some source? A lack of balance? Failure to follow MoS (if this is the claim, please say what the style concern is...such as improper referencing or incorrect used of subsections...). ThanksOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an American editor, my view is that this is an excellently written article. It gives context that is understandable for someone not who is not native to British culture. Unlike most articles when there is disagreement the article does not draw conclusions based on the most reliable source but identifies specifically who is disagreeing and what the disagreements are about. Edkollin (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Mod Revival?

Would anyone be in favour of merging the Mod Revival article here?

I consider the Revival to be the 'second wind' of the same movement, and it was possibly this renewed presence in popular culture which influenced in youth the bands which emerged in the '90s such as Blur, Ocean Colour Scene etc; as well as giving Paul Weller an aesthetic for whole career since 1978.

In other words we should see the Mod subculture as one movement which had popular revivals in the late 70s and mid 90s.

The late 70s Revival was clearly of great importance and cemented Modernism as a permanent facet of British culture, but in my view ought be a section of this main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.205.25 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a terrible idea. And, frankly, it makes no sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)