Talk:Skinhead

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

1 Braces 2 68.238.19.168 is me 3 Glossary: Chelsea 4 Trad skins - Political? Racist? 5 Demographics 6 199.217.208.172's History vis-a-vis St. Louis 7 Trojan Skinheads 8 Nazi-Skinheads (Neo-Nazi Skins, sometimes called White Power)

Braces

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

68.238.19.168 is me

I did not notice that my session had timed out before I saved the page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossary: Chelsea

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

Yep. In wisconsin and ohio, that was the only term I ever heard for a girl skinhead, and I've never heard "skingirl". I've never met a "pretentious" skinhead BTW, whats that? Someone who drinks Red Stripe more than once a month? ;) Sam Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new) wishes you a merry Christmas! 15:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Its weird about that "pretending to be english" thing, goths do that to... maybe england is the mecca of anglo subcultures? Sam Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new) wishes you a merry Christmas! 17:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trad skins - Political? Racist?

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

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

I have to admit, I know way more about this than I probably should ;) Way back in the day, when rude boy Jamaican culture first came to England, the original "skinheads" (all trads of course) were largely dockworkers who enjoyed Jamaican music, culture, etc... These fellows were clearly not often racist against blacks (a significant minority were Jamaican immigrants this early on), but they ‘’were’’ sometimes racist against Pakistanis. I have heard some very amusing (to me) anti-Pakistani songs from this era (mid-60's). The anti-Pakistani thing was because Pakistanis were interested in the same sorts of jobs these fellows were, bit possessed of a significantly different culture. Later on, when English football hooligans became involved in the scene, real British nationalist, nazi-esque style racism began to appear. That’s a whole other thing from the everyday racial opinions a Jamaican dock worker and his British rude boy friend might have shared about "pakis taking all the jobs", etc... SHARPS, red skins, and whatever else came along significantly later of course, and largely as an outlet for rowdy Lefties. As far as trad-skin politics, they are about the same as anybody else, w perhaps a bit more emphasis on working class values and economic hardships, again quite different from the commies and nazi's which can be found amongst non-trad skins. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 02:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see us disagreeing about any of this. An individual trad skin is no more likely to be racist than anti-racist, no more likely top be interested in politics than not, their just average people on these issues, w perhaps a bit of extra emphasis towards being working class. The important thing is that trad skins generally are not defined by racism, anti-racism, or any particular type of politics (except perhaps that which relates directly to being working class). In short their not Nazis, SHARPs, or commies, but they do like some aspects of Jamaican culture, particularly SKA. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 17:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 00:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Maybe I was too broad with region, and the more I think about it, what I said probably applied more to my city than anything. Wisconsin is a big state, and I'm certain there were completely different situations in other areas. but even in a place like Chicago, their are neighborhoods where different "firms" predominate. As far as Trad skinheads, I confess my ignorance. The only people I've ever known personally who were even close wern't skinheads at all, but SKA fans who were interested in the scene. I was going off of what I've read online, their are some pretty good sites on the net. I research street gangs and youth movements, militias etc... quite a bit, but thats never as useful of info as knowing people first hand. What did you think of the current intro? I'm worried the statement on trads may be a bit long, and imperfctly informative. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 23:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Demographics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trojan Skinheads

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

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

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

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

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

Unconventional 20:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would point out that while american racist skinheads may not always be "nazis", I have never met or heard of a German skinhead who isn't a Nazi and NPD supporter. Here is a handy news link [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4556233.stm). Sam Spade 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)