 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Redirected the page to DIY Culture
The DIY ethic article should be murged into DIY Culture. —This unsigned comment is by Ecto (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 March 2006.
I believe merging the DIY Ethic page with the DIY culture page would be a mistake; the DIY ethic is often used apart from the politics or other aspects of the culture, and I think the disctinction, even if minor is still valid, and cross refrencing rather than merging would preserve some clarity between the Ethic and the culture it is generally associated with. Jeremiah Shackelford Palm SPrings, CA
oppose merging. DIY ethic is about theory, DIY culture is about practice. this is a very firm divide and one we need to preserve. frymaster 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, please don't merge Guy 05:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the term "DIY Ethos" as opposed as "DIY Ethic" is that DIY ethic is the phrase thats commonly used. Wikipedia's purpose really isn't to come up with newer or more-fitting terms. --TK
What about one title: DIY movements; then discuss the distinctions between ethics and culture, since as seperate articles the distinction is unclear (unless someone looks at this page) Victoria Martinez
i like the idea of DIY movements... but it is a good idea to maintain some kind of separation so that people can see the broadness of what the term DIY refers to. --Juliblana 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No! to merge Holon67 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is a difference between DIY and the culture that surrounds it, and they should have separate articles. The Ungovernable Force 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, ok I can see your point, but i think that there should at least be some sort paragraph in each of them referencing each other. --Mirabile Dictu 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A part of the problem would seem to be that DIY Culture is talking about the politics of the movement, while the DIY Ethics article is more about the making of things for yourself. They're just reversed! I am opposed to merging the two articles, since this is really more of a personal philosophy for most people than a political movement, and the politics really are seporate so they should have seporate articles. But I think they need to be more clearly and accurately defined, and linked. --TK
Do It Yourself culture and activism is based in major part on the DIY ethic. The idea that you can and should do something for yourself is the basis of DIY culture. Consider people like Monte Cazazza and Genesis P. Orridge who, with DIY motivation, launched an entire generation of underground DIY culture.
I think DIY Culture should be the main article, and the DIY ethic should be explained inside it as a seperate, but major part of the 'movement'.
Ian Evil 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politics ain't culture, DIY is a movement with the punk scene, not a movement within the culture of political radicalism! Look at Crass: Teh band. Just because their rejection of "middlemen" had the end goal of freeing them to achieve political ends through cultural means doesn't mean that it was a purely political action. Does that make sense? THIS IS A CULTURAL PHENOMENON AND IT MEANS THAT CULTURE IS A MORE DIRECT EXRPRESSION OF THE PEOPLE WHO PRODUCE IT THAN ANY MODERN MASS SOCIETY / POP CULTURE IS. This shit is a big deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose making the categories "green vehicle tuning", "microgeneration", "green house construction", "green cooking" and "permaculture". They are to be placed under diy-culture category. Everyone OK and can this be done ? It would be very helpful for gathering information for new (green) diy-projects.
KVDP (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
