Talk:Sham 69

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sham 69 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Surrey C‑class Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indifferent success?

What the hell does "indifferent success" mean? --User:Chinasaur

On Sham 69's pioneering chart successes, ahem...

"After being the first punk band with a Top 10 UK single, "If The Kids Are United",...."

Oh really? What about that (admittedly otherwise-forgotten) punk band known as Sex Pistols? Didn't they do a tiny wee bit of chart-bothering prior to 1978?

Some serious fantasising going on in this article as it stands...--DaveG12345 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The cited article actually notes that it is the opinion of the band.

Other punks bands have achieved this too: Sex Pistols, Clash, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Stranglers, Boomtown Rats, and maybe more.

Perhaps those references need to be removed from this article?Robojam (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macdonalds

I don't believe the Macdonalds story. The band's track If The Kids Are United was used on a Macdonalds ad during an early 1990s World cup, much to the band's chagrin (they didn't hold onto the licensing rights). I think the TOTP report was a joke, a deliberate insult or a mistake, or the wikipedien misheard; after all, Pursey was modelling for The Gap a few years ago! Also, much of this article seems sneering and POV. I will change it at some point, as the band's later history deserves a better hearing that it is currently getting, and their earlier importance as a genuinely working class punk phenomena needs expanding. Pursey probably deserves his own entry as well. Jmc29

re-Macdonald

I don't believe the Macdonald's story too. But i don't really know what Pursey's doing now...After going in their website, i just think that he continues to sing in Sham 69 and they are giging somewhere in England... I have a book that gives informations about Sham 69 an Pursey's story but it's old...(date from the 80's yeah!), so i don't know much more about him. :-( But this is not a wikipedien's misheard. I saw that rumour in few other sites too...But this wikipedien did another mistake... this page isn't alright: it's a copy from another text that i saw on internet. But i don't know how to put the advertise! So, if someone can do something to correct this article, do it please. Bobby Disgracious 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did they form?

Ok, so they broke up in '78, were "ressurected" in the 90s... there's one thing missing: WHEN THEY STARTED!!!

"bathroom stall wall"

This phraseology comes from the existing text of the main article. It will certainly bring forth laughter from English readers of the text, if not others too. Presumably we are talking about a lavatory wall here. Probably best to say so, otherwise half the world will think we call such things 'bathroom stall walls'.

Derek R Bullamore 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were Sham 69 Skinheads?

Were they skinheads or were in support of the Skinhead movement? In the aticle it said that the the members were skinheads which led to influence oi & street punk. I have also heard they were skinheads from several people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John)nobody 768 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Judging by photos taken at various stages of their career, it doesn't look like they were actually skinheads, and the article does not claim that the band members were skinheads. However, many of their fans were/are skinheads. Also, skinhead is a subculture, not a movement. Spylab 17:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were very thin, if that's what you mean. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attended a show in the 1988-89 era. I had no idea who they where, I was there to see an opening band (I was a teen). However, Nazi-skins came out in force, and they were not happy. Long story, told short, people were spitting at eachother and I rememember shouts of "You are not the real Sham 69." The show ended early, to my dismay. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were a punk band that happened to attract followers that included skinheads. There's a YouTube original 1979 video of them performing "Hersham Boys" - with one of the greatest intros to any pop song ever - here: [2] - note the few bars of The Sweeney theme tune at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup & lineup

For the record, breakup and lineup are real words in the English language. I'm not sure if there is a geographic variation in the way they are spelled, but according to dictionary.com they can be spelled that way, or as break-up and line-up. My preference is to use the spellings without the hyphen, and that's the way I usually see those words spelled on Wikipedia Spylab 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SHAM69-S.jpg

Image:SHAM69-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 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 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event?

Does this event still recquire to be classified as discussing a current event?Hammard 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam 69

I remember the opening chords/intro for "Borstal Breakout" being used in a TV ad campaign for Hormel Foods Corporation's Spam luncheon meat a few years ago. I sent an eMail to Pursey and Sham to inform them but received no reply. BigMeanie (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup, really?

Hi, I just been to a Sham69 gig in Porto, Portugal. What is this story about a breakup, or did I just see fake members on the stage? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.214.231 (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent post-breakup (2011) edits...

It would appear that there have been numerous POV-pushing edits to this article over the past month or so in relation to the recent breakup of Sham69 and subsequent reformation of one or more lineup(s) of the band, composed of various configurations of current/former Sham69 members. Looks to me as though people who either represent (or are) the various post-split factions are trying to have their version/opinion of the Truth as to who is the legitimate continuation of the band and what exactly happened with the breakup represented as the only one.

Could I just remind these fellows of WP:COI and WP:NPOV and suggest that they discuss this issue on here and attempt to come to a consensus as to how the article should read, instead of this slow, silent edit-warring? I'm talking to users such as MaxLondon (talk · contribs), Icw69 (talk · contribs), Ifone1 (talk · contribs), Shamdrummerex (talk · contribs) and whomsoever is editing using IPs in particular here. Thanks.

(For what it's worth, I have no particular opinion on who is right here - I don't even own any Sham albums that were released after 1980...) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Sham 69 is under the control of Jimmy Pursey, with Dave Parsons. Any lineup they put together with other band members they choose to call upon is the only band legally entitled to use the name Sham 69. Members of the recent (so-called Tim V) lineup have been issued with 'cease and desist' documentation indicating that continued wrongful use of the name Sham 69 will result in legal action against them for misrepresentation and passing off. Most of the users recently editing have been ex members of the band (some using multiple addresses) putting their own slant on events. I am attempting to keep everything accurate and neutral. - MaxLondon (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. BTW, don't you guys think that the one who had most personal issues with Pursey was Ian Whitewood, not Dave Parsons? See, if Pursey & Parsons had actually become enemies due to Pursey's negligence of the band's duties, would they play together in 2012 and even in their 1977 configuration? Compare the 2 line-ups: it's Ian Whitewood who is missing on drums in the first (original) line-up, so it seems he will never ever play together with Pursey. It's these two guys who had the most personal misunderstandings, so the BBC NEWS (on Jan 26th 2007) was not quite on the spot saying there was a "bitter fallout between Parsons and Pursey". -andy 77.190.21.70 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be speculation or original research, a published source would be needed for it to be included in the article. Peter E. James (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of June 2012, when Jimmy Pursey registered the name as a trademark, the only band entitled to use the name 'Sham 69' is the original 1977 Pursey/Parsons line-up ^[1]. The reference for this registration can be seen at ^[2]line-up anyone else using the name is misleading the fans. MaxLondon (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits do not appear to have improved the article. If it can be verified that there were two bands using the name, that can still be mentioned. The claim that "anyone else using the name is misleading the fans" seems to be opinion and not attributed to a source, and if there are still two bands, it may be more misleading to state that there is only one, and to imply that it's unnecessary to check which band is being referred to. Peter E. James (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Refactored comment from 2009

'Kings & Queens' album is not a compilation as such, but rerecordings of the old songs........Faren Short —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.243.54 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored comment from 2014

See the comment I posted re Dave Parsons in the article and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.153.98 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crochetpunk ?

What is crochet punk ? Crochet links to the knitting method, punk links to punk music. So what is crochet punk?

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.93 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sham 69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518111246/http://www.sham69online.co.uk/HISTORY.html to http://www.sham69online.co.uk/HISTORY.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] Sham 69 text trademark

[1]

[2]